Judgment :- 1. Defendant who lost his case in both the courts below is the appellant. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:—Plaintiff is a trust known as Roopanarayana Pillayar Devaswom, Kuzhithurai. The suit properties belong to the trust. The defendant was given right to collect the usufructs from the properties for one year. He committed default in payment of fee for two years and he has committed waste by cutting and removing a tree worth Rs. 1,000/-. Though the period of licence was for one year, he continued the same by holding over and so, the suit is filed for recovery of pos session and arrears of lease rent and damages. 3. The case of the defendant is as follows:— The defendant was regular in payment of lease rent without any arrears. He has also not committed any act of waste. His statuses tenant has been declared in O.S 846 of 1971 and 402 of 1971. So, the suit is barred by ‘res-judicata’. The defendant is entitled to the benefits of Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. 4. The suit was tried by the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, and it was decreed. 5. In the first appeal, the decree and judgment of the trial Court was modified and the plaintiffs suit was decreed for recovery of possession and dismissed in other respects. 6. Aggrieved against that judgment and decree, the present Second Appeal is preferred by the defendant. 7. Substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal is that “Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is sustainable in view of the judicial pronouncement reported in Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam (1982)95 L.W, 322)” 8. In the case cited, it has been held that in the case of right to pluck coconuts, the plaintiff is entitled to decree holding that he is a lessee. Relying upon that decision, counsel for the appellant pointed out that the defendant is the lessee in respect of the suit property and he is not a licensee and he is entitled to the benefits of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. 9. Relying upon that decision, counsel for the appellant pointed out that the defendant is the lessee in respect of the suit property and he is not a licensee and he is entitled to the benefits of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. 9. Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the defendant was given right to pluck usufructs from the trees and what was granted to him is a licence and he is not a lessee in respect of the suit property and so, he is not entitled to the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and decree passed in the suit is perfectly in order. 10. The documents, Exhibits A3 to A5 prove that the defendant became the highest bidder in the auction and the auction was confirmed in his favour. The right given to the defendant was only to pluck coconuts. The plaintiff has clearly stated in his notice, Exhibit A1 that only licence was given to the defendant and the defendant has not paid the licence fee and the properties were given to the defendant under licence for plucking the usufructs, in public auction. Exhibits A3 to A5 prove that open auction was held and the defendant was given licence with regard to the suit property. The defendant has taken possession of the suit property by virtue of confirmation of auction in his favour and he did not pay the licence fee. These documents establish that the defendants interest in the suit properties is only very limited viz., to collect the usufructs. No lease agreement has been entered into between the parties to substantiate the contention of the defendant that he is a lessee in respect of the suit property. There is no lease deed. The defendant was given right to pluck usufructs in the suit property. 11. Relying upon the decision cited, the counsel for the defendant pointed out that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree and the defendant is a lessee since the right to pluck coconuts amounts to lease and not licence. 12. Counsel for the respondent relies upon the decision Senniappa Nadar v. T.R. Sarojini Ammal and another (1996-1-L.W. 291) which states that right to pluck the usufructs of the coconut trees amounts only to licence. 12. Counsel for the respondent relies upon the decision Senniappa Nadar v. T.R. Sarojini Ammal and another (1996-1-L.W. 291) which states that right to pluck the usufructs of the coconut trees amounts only to licence. In this decision also, the point whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are not opposed to the principles laid down in the decision Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam (1982)95 L.W. 322 came up for consideration. It has been held in this decision that, “Admittedly, both the parties to the controversy have not executed any documents in respect of the collection of usufructs from the coconut trees on the suit land. A perusal of the oral evidence of P.W.I shows that the defendant is entitled to collect only the usufructs and that he is only a licence in respect of the land. The concurrent findings of the courts below are that the defendant is not a cultivating tenant and what was granted to him is only a licence.” In the instant case also, no document has been executed. The oral evidence shows that the defendant is entitled to collect only the usufructs. In exhibit A1 notice also, the plaintiff has clearly stated the defendant was given right only to collect yield from the suit properties. So, there is ample evidence on the side of the plaintiff to prove that what was granted to the defendant was only a licence to collect the usufructs from the trees. The defendant has also not produced any documents to substantiate that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit property. No tenancy record is also filed by the defendant to prove that his name was recorded in the tenancy records and he is entitled to the benefits of Cultivating Tenants 205 Protection Act. If really this defendant was a cultivating tenant, he would have recorded his name in the Record of Tenancy. There are no adangal or no other document to prove that the defendant is a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit property. Without filing any document with regard to the contention that the defendant is a cultivating tenant, mere oral evidence of the defendant cannot be relied upon. There are no adangal or no other document to prove that the defendant is a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit property. Without filing any document with regard to the contention that the defendant is a cultivating tenant, mere oral evidence of the defendant cannot be relied upon. Documents filed by the plaintiff prove that auction was held and the defendant was given right to pluck the usufructs and the defendant is in possession of the suit property only as a licensee. Absolutely, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as cultivating tenant, and he is entitled to the benefits of Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. In the decision reported in 1996-1-L.W. 291 referred to above, a number of decisions have been referred to and it has been held in those decisions that right to collect the produce of the trees is not a lease and it is only a licence. So, applying the principles laid down in those cases for determining whether the particular transaction is a licence or lease, to the facts of the present case, and taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence of this case, I am of the view that what was granted to the defendant by the plaintiff was only a right to pluck the usufructs from the trees and it amounts to licence. 13. The defendant contends that his status as tenant has been once for all she declared in O.S 846 of 1971 and 402 of 1971. O.S 402 of 1971 was filed by the present defendant as plaintiff in that suit against the present plaintiff. That suit was filed for bare injunction and it has been found in that suit that the suit property was auctioned by the then President to the present defendant (plaintiff therein) and the defendant got the suit property and he was continuously in possession of the suit property and so, that suit was decreed with regard to the claim of the defendant that he is the lessee cultivating tenant, that was not the subject matter of that suit and that point was not decided in that suit. The defendants in that suit are different and the plaintiff is not the party in that proceeding. The defendants in that suit are different and the plaintiff is not the party in that proceeding. Suit O.S 846 of 1971 was filed by the present defendant as plaintiff in that suit with regard to arrears of rent and the issues involved in that suit was who was entitled to receive the rents between two defendants in that suit. The dispute involved in that suit was with regard to the payment of rent. So, the subject matter involved in this suit was not the subject matter in O.S No. 846 of 1971 and further the present plaintiff is not a party to the suit O.S No. 846 of 1971. So, the decisions in O.S No. 402 of 1971 and 846 of 1971 do not operate as res judicata for the present suit. On the basis of the evidence available, both the courts below have concurrently held that what was given to the defendant is only a licence and I entirely agree with the findings of the courts below. There is no merit and substance in the Second Appeal. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.