ORDER
Raju, J.
1. The above second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Strkali dated 27.11.1980 in O.S. No. 95 of 1977.
2. The suit O.S. No. 95 of 1977 was filed by the respondent Mutt praying for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit, properties by the plaintiff, and in the alternative if it is found by the Court that the plaintiff was not in possession on the date of the suit for recovery of possession. The claim of the plaintiff in substance was that the suit properties have not been leased out to anyone and the defendants were not in possession of the suit properties as tenants much less cultivating tenants. The defendants have filed a written statement and it was contended that the suit properties have been let out to the first defendant’s father for planting and rearing fruit bearing trees and also cultivation of dry crops, that the first defendant’s father had planted and raised tamarind and mango trees besides chillies and other Vegetable crops and has been taking the profits for himself, that the tenancy started in the year 1935 and the rent was fixed at Rs. 6/- per annum and that the rent was being paid by serving the mutt works in the suit village and the same was never paid in cash till the death of the defendant’s father. It is claimed that after the death of the father, the first defendant is continuing in the tenancy by holding over the same. On this nature of pleadings, the suit was tried and the trial Court merely finding that the defendants were in possession and that they were also cultivating the suit properties by their own physical labour, came to the conclusion that the first defendant is a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit property and, therefore, dismissed the suit.
3. At the time of admitting the appeal, it was felt necessary to consider whether the burden of proof has been wrongly shitted to the appellant to prove their entitlement for protection under the Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961, and whether the lower appellate Court has given detailed reasons for not accepting the testimony of some of the witnesses examined in the trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants in this Court invited my attention to the decisions in Periathambi Goundan v. District Revenue Officer (FB) and T.D. Gopalan v. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras and contended that not only the lower appellate Court has failed to properly apply its mind and give sufficient reasons to reject the evidence of some of the witnesses, but has committed an error in decreeing the suit in the teeth of the prohibition contained in Section 16-A of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969 when it is only the authorities constituted under the said Act who alone are entitled to decide the question of the landlord and tenancy relationship between parties. Learned counsel for the respondent while adopting the reasoning of the lower appellate Court in support of his stand contended that the lower appellate Court has given – cogent and convincing reasons for its findings and the trial Court not only misread the evidence on record but misdirected itself to the issues before it and that at any rate the embargo under Section 16-A of the Act does not have the effect of ousting the civil Court jurisdiction in its entirety and at all circumstances. In substance it is contended that it cannot be said to be a complete or total ouster of jurisdiction as understood and clarified by the subsequent decisions by this Court as also the Full Bench relied upon by the appellants.
6. As per the decision of the lower appellate Court on the merits of the claim and the grievance made on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court contained in T.D. Gopalan vs. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras (Supra), I am of the view that the grievance is not well merited and does not deserve to be countenanced. The Supreme Court has declared while dealing with the duty of an appellate Court to deal with the reasons given by the trial Court in rejecting the testimony of witnesses that if the trial Court has given cogent and detailed reasons for not accepting the testimony of the witness, the appellate Court in all fairness to it ought to deal with those reasons before proceedings to form a contrary opinion about accepting the testimony which has been rejected by the trial Court. As a matter of general principle, there can be no dispute over the said decision of law. But in my view the lower appellate Court cannot be said to have violated such statement of law declared by the Supreme Court on the facts and circumstances of the case. Apart from the fact that the lower appellate Court has given cogent and convincing reasons, it has appreciated the evidence as it ought to and as it also deserve unlike the trial Court and I cannot find any patent error of law or perversity or approach in the manner of analysis or method of appreciation of the evidence on record by the lower appellate Court. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court to warrant interfitence in this appeal. The Second appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs.
7. Learned counsel for appellants represents that his application for recording himself as a tenant under the Act is pending before the authorities. This judgment shall not preclude the authorities from considering such application and passing orders in accordance with law.