Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1134
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7464-7466 OF 2011
GOVINDAPPA GOUNDER @ GOVINDASAMY (DEAD) …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
K.VIJAYAKUMAR AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7467-7469 OF 2011
J U D G M E N T
1.
Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are
same and the challenge is also to the self same judgment and
order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing
analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment
and order.
2. For the sake of convenience, we treat the Civil Appeal Nos.
7464-7466/2011, which are notified today at Serial No.103 of the
cause list as the lead matter.
Signature Not Verified
3.
These appeals arise from the common judgment and order
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2025.09.20
14:08:24 IST
Reason:
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated
1
18.11.2009, by which the Second Appeal filed by the
respondents herein (original plaintiffs) came to be
allowed thereby set asiding the judgment and decree dated
18.12.2002 passed by the First Appellate Court in Appeal
Suit No. 15/2001 arising from the judgment and decree
dated 24.11.2000 passed in Original Suit No. 491/1994 by
the Court of the II Additional District Munsif,
Coimbatore.
4.
This litigation has a long drawn history. The
appellants before us are the original defendants and the
respondents are the original plaintiffs.
5.
During the pendency of the present appeals, the
appellant Govindappa Gounder @ Govindasamy passed away. In
such circumstances, we have permitted his legal heirs to
be brought on record. Some of the respondents have also
died.
6.
It is the case of the appellants herein that
Govindappa Gounder @ Govindasamy was lawfully cultivating
the suit land bearing Survey Nos. 169-170 respectively,
situated in Village Pichanoor, Taluk Coimbatore South,
Tamil Nadu, admeasuring 6 Acres & 98 Cents. Since the
respondents herein claiming to be the lawful owners of the
suit property were trying to interfere with the peaceful
possession of the appellants herein, Original Suit No.
2
1363/1993 came to be instituted praying for permanent
injunction restraining the land owners from interfering
with his possession and cultivation of the subject land.
The Original Suit No. 1363/1993 was allowed. The same
came to be decreed. The Trial Court ordered that the land
owners shall not disturb or interfere with the lawful
possession of the tenant except in accordance with law.
We are informed that against the said judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court in the Original Suit No.
1363/1993, appeal was also filed and the said appeal also
came to be dismissed.
7. We now proceed to look into one another proceedings.
It appears from the materials on record that the
respondents herein claiming to be the lawful owners of the
subject land instituted the Original Suit No. 491/1994 in
the Court of District Munsif, Coimbatore seeking permanent
injunction against the appellants herein restraining them
from cutting trees or from causing any damage or waste to
the subject property. The Plaintiffs in Original Suit No.
491/1994 also prayed for awarding adequate damages for the
alleged loss caused by cutting trees etc. It appears that
the Original Suit Nos. 1363/1993 and 491/1994 respectively
were ordered to be consolidated, since the parties were
the same and by and large the issues were also the same.
3
Common evidence was recorded. The Original Suit No.
491/1994 came to be allowed. The relief prayed for in the
said suit was granted. The appellants herein being
dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed in the
Original Suit No. 491/1994, preferred a First Appeal in
the District Court. The First Appeal came to be allowed
and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was
ordered to be set aside.
8.
In such circumstances referred to above, the
respondents herein i.e. the original plaintiffs, went
before the High Court in Second Appeal. The Second Appeal
came to be allowed. The High Court set aside the judgment
and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and
restored the original decree passed by the Trial Court.
9.
In such circumstances referred to above, the
appellants –(legal heirs), are here before us with the
present appeals.
10. We heard Mr. T.V. George, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent no.4.
11.
It appears that the judgment and decree that came to
be passed in the Original Suit No. 491/1994 lead the
4
respondents herein in preferring the Original Petition No.
16/2001 before the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Court,
Tiruchirapalli. The said proceedings came to be instituted
by the respondents under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (for short, “the
Act 1955”) for eviction of the appellants on the ground
that they caused damage to the suit land by felling trees
etc. It appears that the Revenue Court relied upon the
report of the Commissioner appointed by the Civil Court in
the suit proceedings and proceeded to pass an order dated
21.11.2008 allowing the Original Petition and directing
eviction of the appellants from the suit land. While
disposing of the Original Petition, the Revenue Court
observed as under:
“On behalf of the petitioner Ex.P.2 Court
commissioner's Report was marked. The said
report was marked in O.S. 491 of 1994 on the
file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. In
the suit was stated that the respondent has
cut the trees and its branches also caused
damages to the lands by digging pits therefore
they sought for damages of Rs.10,000/- and
also sought for permanent injunction
restraining the respondent from cutting the
trees and committing acts of waste, the Trial
Court also decreed the suit and the said
decree is marked as Ex.P.3.
Regarding this case it is accepted by both
sides, that the petitioner was land lord and
respondent was tenant, Ex.P.2 Court
Commissioner, in his Report stated that trees
and branches were cut down and pits also dug
up in the lands. In Ex.P.3 District Munsif
5
Courts order also it is found that the trees
and branches were cut off and pits were dug
up.
Hence, the respondent has dug up the pits
and cut down the trees and branches is proved.
The respondent without cultivating the lands.
Since cut down the trees and branches has
caused damages to the land is proved. The
Respondents were given the property for
cultivation only. Since he has committed
damages without cultivating lands he cost the
tenancy rights and therefore losing the right
as tenant.
Hence the respondent is directed to be
evicted from the lands and to hand over the
possession. To facilitate Executive Revenue
Inspector to execute the order. The petitioner
is to approach the Executive Revenue Inspector
by Registered Post addressed to respondent and
Village Administrative Officer.”
12.
The order passed by the Revenue Court lead the
appellants in filing of the Civil Revision Petition No.
4052/2008 in the High Court. When the Second Appeal was
taken up for hearing by the High Court, the revision was
also heard together and a common order came to be passed.
13.
At this stage, we must talk about the connected
appeals, which are notified at Serial No. 103.1 being the
Civil Appeal Nos.7467-7469/2011. These appeals have been
filed by one another branch of the family of the
respondent no.1 claiming to be the lawful heirs and owners
of the suit property. They also seek to challenge the
very same judgment and order passed by the High Court.
6
However, we need not look into these appeals as they have
already instituted the Original Suit No. 302/2009 in the
Civil Court at Coimbatore, wherein the respondents herein
are the original defendants. The Original Suit no.
302/2009 shall be decided by the trial Court on its own
merits.
14. In the present litigation, we are only concerned with
the order of eviction that came to be passed by the
Revenue Court on the strength of the decree that the Civil
Court passed in the Original Suit No. 491/1994. It
appears that the Revenue Court relying on Ext. P.2 i.e.
the Court Commissioner’s report, recorded a finding that
the appellants herein are responsible for cutting of trees
etc., thereby causing damage to the suit land. It was
also alleged that the appellants digged pits and
constructed huts in the suit land. This, according to the
Revenue Court, was in violation of the provisions of
Section 3(2)(b) of the Act 1955.
15. In the aforesaid context, we must look into the
provisions of law. The Act 1955 came to be enacted for
the purpose of protection from eviction of the cultivating
tenants in certain areas in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Section 3 provides in what circumstances the landlords
shall not evict the cultivating tenants. Section 3(2)(b)
7
reads thus:””
“3. Landlords not to evict cultivating
tenants:-
(2)subject to the next succeeding sub-
section(1) shall not apply to a cultivating
tenant-
(b) Who has done any act or has been guilty of
any negligence which is destructive of, or
injurious to, the land or any crop thereon or
has altogether ceased to cultivate the land;”
16.
A plain reading of Section 3 would indicate that no
cultivating tenant can be evicted from its holdings or any
part thereof at the instance of his landlord whether in
execution of a decree or order of a Court or otherwise,
but the same is subject to sub-Section (b). Sub-Section
(b) provides that whoever has done any act or has been
guilty of any negligence, which could be termed as
destructive of, or injurious to, the land or any crop
thereon, then, such a tenant is liable to be evicted and
he would not stand protected under the provisions of the
Act 1955. Section 3(2)(b) also provides that even if the
tenant has stopped cultivating the land, he would lose the
protection and would be liable to eviction.
17. The short point for our consideration is whether there
is any cogent material or evidence to indicate that the
appellants had indulged in cutting of trees or its
branches or digging up the land and thereby causing
8
substantial damage so as to bring the case within the
ambit of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act 1955.
18.
We have already reproduced the findings recorded by
the Revenue Court. We shall now look into the findings
recorded by the High Court in this regard. Paragraphs 17,
18 and 19 respectively of the impugned judgment of the
High Court reads thus:
“17. Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Cultivating
Tenants' Protection Act, 1955 prohibits the
eviction of cultivating tenants by the
landlords and one of the exceptions in Section
3(2)(b) goes thus:
"(b) who has done any act or has been
guilty of any negligence which is
destructive of, or injurious to, the
land or any crop thereon or has
altogether ceased to cultivate the
land."
18. The civil court has rendered a finding to
the effect that by means of the commissioner's
report it has been shown that the nature of the
property has been altered by cutting branches of
several trees digging pits, put up new huts,
constructing a water tank by embedding pipes in
the suit land. The prescribed authority under
the Act viz., the Revenue Court has exercised
its jurisdiction in an appropriate manner in
passing eviction order on the ground of causing
destructive and injurious activities to the
leasehold land. As far as the order passed by
the revenue Court challenged before this Court
is concerned, the fact placed by the appellants
before the said court has been thoroughly and
appropriately appreciated and eviction order has
been passed.
19. It is urged on the side of the first
respondent that there was no landlord and tenant
relationship between the appellants and the
9
first respondent. The court has to bear in mind
that only on behalf of Kuppusamy Gounder and
Palani Gounder, who were then minors, Palaniappa
Gounder leased the properties to Chinnaiah and
after he left the properties with them, they
took responsibility of the affairs of the suit
property the fact that they are owners of the
property having been known by the tenants and
the undertaking on the part of the first
respondent to the effect that he is ready and
willing to attorn the tenancy in favour of valid
title holder would go a long way to show that
there is landlord tenant relationship existing
between the parties.”
19.
We take notice of the fact that against the order
passed by the Revenue Court referred to above, a revision
lies directly in the High Court as provided under Section
6(B) of the Act 1955, which reads thus:
“6-B. Revision by High Court - The Revenue
Divisional Officer shall be deemed to be a
Court subordinate to the High Court for the
purposes of Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) and his
orders shall be liable to revision by the High
Court under the provisions of the Section. ”
20.
We have reached the conclusion having regard to the
materials on record that there is nothing to indicate that
the appellants were negligent in any manner or had done
any act by which they could be said to have caused damage
to the suit land or could be said to have done something,
which could be said to be injurious to the land or any
crop thereon. We should not overlook the fact that the
appellants had been cultivating the suit land since 1955-
10
1960. They would be more concerned or interested to
protect the land, more particularly their crops they
cultivate. Assuming for a moment that there is something
to indicate that the trees were pruned by itself would not
bring the case within the ambit of Section 3(2)(b) of the
Act 1955. It appears that the Revenue Court mechanically
relied upon the Commissioner’s report and passed the order
of eviction. The High Court also in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, affirmed the order in a very
slipshod manner passed by the Revenue Court.
21. In such circumstances referred to above, we are of the
view that the High Court committed an error in allowing
the Second Appeal filed by the respondents and thereby
interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the
First Appellate Court in favour of the appellants herein.
22.
The Act 1955 was enacted solely to protect the
interest of the cultivating tenants. In other words, the
object in enacting the said Act was to protect the
cultivating tenants from forcible dispossession by the
landlords. In such circumstances, the provisions of the
Act should also be interpreted accordingly. In other
words, the provisions should be interpreted in such a
manner that the tenants are ultimately protected and are
11
not thrown out at the instance of the landlords who are
always interested to see that the tenants leave. It is
only when there is cogent, credible and reliable evidence
on record of gross violation of the provisions of Section
3(2)(b) of the Act 1955 that the Revenue Court may be
justified in ordering eviction of the tenant under the Act
1955.
23.
The enactments like the Act 1955 are really meant for
the purposes proclaimed by them. The obvious effect of
such statutory provisions cannot be taken away or whittled
down by forensic sophistry. Courts should not allow
themselves to become tools for defeating clearly expressed
statutory intentions. [See: G. Ponniah Thevar v/s Nalleyam
Perumal Pillai & Ors. reported in (1977)1 SCC 500]
24. Beneficent construction involves giving the widest
meaning possible to the statutes. When there are two or
more possible ways of interpreting a section or a word,
the meaning which gives relief and protects the benefits
which are purported to be given by the legislation, should
be chosen. A beneficial statute has to be construed in its
correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative
intent. The Act, 1955 seeks to protect cultivating tenants
from unjust evictions and it is a cardinal principle of
law that in case of doubt, such Acts should be interpreted
12
to lean in favour of tenants.
25. In the result, these appeals succeed and are hereby
allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court in
the Civil Revision Petition No. 4052/2008 is hereby set
aside. Consequently, the original order of Revenue Court
also stands set aside.
26.
We direct that the respondents shall not interfere
with the possession of the appellants, save and except in
accordance with law.
27. In view of the disposal of Civil Appeal Nos. 7464-
7466/2011, the connected Civil Appeal Nos. 7467-7469/2011
also stand disposed of.
28.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
..................J.
[ J.B. PARDIWALA ]
..................J.
[ SANDEEP MEHTA ]
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 10, 2025
13