R. Vijayakumar, J.

1. The second defendant is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 216 of 1989 before the District Munsif Court, Srivaikuntam for the relief of permanent injunction that his possession as a lessee should not be disturbed by the defendants. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed A.S. No. 39 of 1995 before the Sub Court, Tuticorin. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and decree the suit. As against the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the second defendant.

3. The plaintiff had contended that the first defendant temple is the owner of the suit schedule properties and the second defendant is the present trustee of the first defendant temple. According to the plaintiff, he was granted an agricultural lease of the suit schedule properties by the defendant on 15.09.1983 under Exhibit A1. The plaintiff has been paying the lease amount to the defendant under Exhibits A2 and A3 on 26.08.1984 and 05.03.1986. Since some third parties started disturbing the possession of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 465 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikuntam and the suit was decreed in favour the plaintiff on 16.02.1989 and the decree is marked as Exhibit A4. When the suit was pending, the first defendant has issued a notice on 25.07.1988 under Exhibit A5, calling upon the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the possession. The plaintiff has sent the lease amount through money order to the defendant under Exhibit A6 on 10.03.1989. However, the same was returned as refused under Exhibit A7. Since the defendant is attempting to dispossess him, the present suit has been filed for permanent injunction not to disturb the possession of the plaintiff as a lessee of the defendant.

4. The defendant filed a written statement admitting Exhibit A1 lease deed in favour of the plaintiff. But contended that the said lease is only for a period of three years (i.e.) up to 14.09.1986. The defendant has further contended that the plaintiff is not cultivating the said property by contributing his physical labour and the land itself is not fit for cultivation. According to the defendant, the plaintiff had not cultivated any crop in the suit schedule properties during the lease period or after the lease period. The defendant further contended that Exhibit A1 lease was only for the purpose of cutting and removing the odai trees standing in the suit schedule properties. But no permission was granted to cultivate the land. The defendant has further contended that after receipt of notice to surrender possession, the defendant had surrendered possession on 28.12.1988 to the defendant and the defendant alone is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has not produced any oral or documentary evidence to establish the fact that either during the lease period or thereafter the plaintiff was cultivating the suit schedule properties. The trial Court further found that since the plaintiff has not established that he is cultivating the suit schedule properties, contributing his physical labour, the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act.

6. The trial Court further found that the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 465 of 1984 has been filed by the present plaintiff against some third parties and the said decree would not come to the rescue of the plaintiff. The trial Court further found that one Suyambu Nadar has been registered as a cultivating tenant of the same suit schedule properties by the revenue authorities by an order, dated 19.08.1993 under Exhibit B4. The said order has also been accepted by the land-lord. Hence, the contention of the plaintiff that he is the cultivating tenant of the suit schedule properties is not legally acceptable. Based upon the said findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit in O.S. No. 216 of 1989.

7. The First Appellate Court mainly relied upon Exhibit A1 lease deed in favour of the tenant and found that when the said lease deed has not been cancelled, the plaintiff continues to be in possession of the suit schedule properties only as a tenant. That apart, the First Appellate Court relied upon the decree obtained by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 465 of 1984, dated 16.02.1989 to arrive at a finding that the said decree has not been challenged by the present defendant. If really, the plaintiff in the present suit had surrendered his possession to the land-lord on 28.12.1988, the plaintiff would not have prosecuted the suit and obtained a decree in his favour on 16.02.1989. The First Appellate Court further found that when the present suit was pending, Exhibit B4 order has been passed by the revenue authorities conferring protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act upon one Suyambu Nadar and hence, the said order could not be considered to be a legally valid order. Though the plaintiff/tenant has not produced any records to establish his cultivation or usage of vehicles for transportation of the banana, yet he is a tenant in view of Exhibit A1 lease deed and Exhibit A4 decree. Hence, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allow the first appeal granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff. As against the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the second defendant temple.

8. The above Second Appeal was admitted on the following Substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in law and misdirected itself and decreeing the suit ignoring the statutory presumption as well as the statutory proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act

(2) Whether the Civil Court had got jurisdiction to go into the validity of the proceedings of record officer or the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural lands record of Tenancy Rights Act

(3) Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in law and misdirected itself in proceeding as if the respondent is a cultivating tenant when there is no material to substantiate the same"

9. The learned Counsel for the appellant had contended that Exhibit A1 lease deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff by the then trustee only for the purpose of cutting and removing the odai trees in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff was not permitted to do any cultivation in the suit schedule property. That apart, the said lease deed is valid only for a period of three years and the same has expired in the year 1986. That apart, the plaintiff is not contributing his physical labour to carry out any cultivation operations in the suit schedule properties. Hence, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant, the plea of the plaintiff that he is entitled to protect his possession on the ground that he is the cultivating tenant is not legally sustainable.

10. The learned Counsel for the appellant had further contended that the decree in O.S. No. 465 of 1984 said to have been obtained by the plaintiff will not in anyway affect the rights of the temple. He further contended that if really, the plaintiff is the cultivating tenant of the suit schedule properties and his possession was disturbed in the year 1984, the plaintiff would have approached the revenue authorities to record him as a cultivating tenant. But till the filing of the suit in the year 1989, the plaintiff has not chosen to approach the authorities, to record himself as a cultivating tenant. Further on 19.08.1983, another person by name Suyambu Nadar has approached the revenue authorities and his name has been recorded as a cultivating tenant in the revenue records by an order, dated 19.08.1993 which is marked as Exhibit B4. The said order has not been challenged by the present plaintiff. The learned Counsel for the appellant had further contended that the First Appellate Court has not properly appreciated Exhibit A1 lease deed and Exhibit A4 decree passed in favour of the plaintiff. He further contended that the First Appellate Court has even arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has not established that he is contributing his physical labour for cultivating the suit schedule properties. After arriving at such a finding, the First Appellate Court ought not to have reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the Second Appeal.

11. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent had contended that Exhibit A1 lease deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant in the written statement. The plaintiff has also produced receipts for payment of lease amount as documents number Exhibits A2 and A3, pertaining to the year 1984. He further contended that only at the instigation of the land-lord, some third parties started disturbing possession of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff was forced to file O.S. No. 465 of 1984 before the District Munsif Court, Srivaikuntam. In the said suit, a joint endorsement was made by the parties and a decree as prayed for, was granted by the Court on 16.02.1989. Only when the said suit was pending, the defendant land-lord has chosen to sent a notice on 25.07.1988 calling upon the plaintiff to surrender possession. Thereafter, the plaintiff has sent the lease amount through a money order under Exhibit A6 which was return as refused by the land-lord under Exhibit A7.

12. The learned Counsel for the respondent further contended that while the present suit for permanent injunction was pending, one Suyambu Nadar has approached the revenue authorities and got himself registered as a cultivating tenant with the collusion of the land-lord, only in order to disturb the possession of the plaintiff. He further contended that when a civil suit is pending, the revenue authorities will not have any jurisdiction to decide about who is the cultivating tenant of the suit schedule properties. Hence, he contended that the First Appellate Court was right in not accepting Exhibit B4 order, dated 19.08.1993 which was issued by the revenue authorities conferring cultivating tenant status of one Suyambu Nadar. A combined reading of Exhibit A1 lease deed, Exhibit A4 decree and the emergence of Exhibit B4 pending suit, will clearly establish the fact that the plaintiff is the cultivating tenant of the suit schedule properties. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Second Appeal.

13. I have given an anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

14. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction to protect his possession of the suit schedule properties as a cultivating tenant of the first defendant temple. Exhibit A1 lease deed, Exhibits A2 and A3 receipts for payment of lease amount have been marked on the side of the plaintiff to establish his character of possession over the suit schedule properties. On the other hand, the defendant in his written statement has contended that Exhibit A1 does not permit any cultivation of the property, but only permitted the plaintiff to cut and remove the odai trees in the property. However, a perusal of Exhibit A1 lease deed will demonstrate the said lease deed not only permitted the plaintiff to cut and remove the odai trees but also permitted the lessee to cultivate the land, which is the subject matter of the lease deed.

15. The next contention of the defendant was that the land is not suitable for cultivation and the defendant has not contributed his physical labour for cultivating the said suit schedule properties. Whether a tenant is a cultivating tenant or not is the issue which is within the exclusive domain of the revenue authorities. A civil Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to decide whether a tenant is a cultivating tenant or not. In the present case, though the plaintiff claims to be a lessee from the year 1983 onwards, he has not chosen to approach the revenue authorities for recording himself as a cultivating tenant for reasons best known to him. When there is no adjudication by the revenue authorities with regard to the legal status of the plaintiff, a civil Court has to incidentally go into the question, whether the plaintiff has established his legal character of the possession of the suit schedule properties.

16. Though the defendant has categorically disputed that the plaintiff is not cultivating the suit schedule properties and he is not contributing his physical labour in the suit schedule properties, the plaintiff has utterly failed to let in any oral or documentary evidence to establish that he is cultivating the suit schedule properties. The most precious document to establish the cultivation of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties would be the adangal extract. However, not a single adangal extract has been produced on the side of the plaintiffs.

17. Admittedly, there is no well or any other water source for carrying out cultivation in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff in his deposition has contended that he is drawing water from the land of one Arumuga Konar. There is neither pleading to the said effect in the plaint nor the said Arumuga Konar was examined to prove that water was drawn from the properties of the said Arumuga Konar.

18. Though the plaintiff has further deposed, he is having documents to establish that he was using transport vehicles for transporting banana, no document was produced during his deposition. To summarize absolutely, there is no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the plaintiff to establish that he is cultivating the suit schedule properties, let alone through contributing his physical labour. Hence, this Court can arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiff has not established his legal status as a cultivating tenant over the suit schedule properties, based upon which he is claiming a decree for permanent injunction.

19. The plaintiff has placed much reliance upon Exhibit A4 decree said to have been obtained by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 465 of 1984. On 16.02.1989, the said suit has been filed by the present plaintiff, as against some third parties to protect his possession as a lessee of the defendant temple. Admittedly, the defendant temple is not a party to the said suit. The decree obtained by the present plaintiff under Exhibit A4 will not in anyway prove his legal status as a cultivating tenant, as against the defendant temple. The First Appellate Court has erroneously relied upon the said decree to arrive at a finding that the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant. That apart, even when O.S. No. 465 of 1984 was pending, the defendant temple has issued a notice under Exhibit A5 on 25.07.1988, calling upon the present plaintiff to surrender possession. Only after succeeding in getting a decree under Exhibit A4, the plaintiff has chosen to sent the lease amount through money order under Exhibit A6 on 10.03.1989. There is no explanation whatsoever on the side of the plaintiff why the lease amount was not paid after March 1984, till it was sent through money order in March 1989.

20. While the present suit was pending, one Suyambu Nadar has been declared to be a cultivating tenant of the present suit schedule properties by an order of the revenue authorities, dated 19.08.1993 marked as Exhibit B4. The said order has been faulted with by the First Appellate Court on the ground, that the said order has been passed while the present suit was pending. The First Appellate Court has proceeded to hold that the said order is not valid in the eye of law, in view of the pending present suit for permanent injunction by the plaintiff. The order of the revenue Court cannot be set aside by the Civil Court unless it is challenged by the parties concerned. That apart, the statutory power to declare a particular tenant as a cultivating tenant lies within the exclusive domain of the revenue authorities. When the revenue authorities have exercised their statutory power and declared one Suyambu Nadar as the cultivating tenant of the suit schedule properties, the First Appellate Court was not legally right in ignoring the said order and granting a decree in favour of the present plaintiff. The plaintiff has not established his legal status or that he is cultivating the suit schedule properties and in such circumstances, the First Appellate Court had erroneously rejected the order of the revenue authorities, recording one Suyambu Nadar as the cultivating tenant of the suit schedule properties.

21. The plaintiff has utterly failed to plead and prove that he is a cultivating tenant in order to get a decree for permanent injunction to protect his possession as a cultivating tenant. The First Appellate Court has erroneously granted decree in favour of the plaintiff even after arriving at a finding that the plaintiff has not established that he is a cultivating tenant.

22. In view of the above said discussion, all the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is set aside. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is restored. The Second Appeal stands allowed. No costs.