Judgment : 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for an injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the first defendant preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree. The Appellate Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, with the result that the plaintiff is before this Court now. 2. At the time when the second appeal was admitted, the following question of law is formulated for consideration: “Whether the Judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated by its overlooking the adangal extracts Exs.A-7 to A-9 while determining the question of possession.” 3. The Point: It has been held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Rohini Prasad v. Kasturchand (2000)3 S.C.C. 668 that where misreading of evidence by appellate court would lead to miscarriage of justice or its finding is based on no evidence, the High Court would be justified in interfering with the same in second appeal. It is also held that material or relevant evidence is not considered which, if considered would have led to opposite conclusion and when finding of fact had been arrived at by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence, in either of these situations substantial question of law would arise for consideration and interference with findings of fact is permissible. Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) v. Sohan Lal (Dead) (2000)1 C.T.C. 359. 4. I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to above would squarely apply to the facts of this case. 5. Thesuit is filed for injunction. There are six items of property all situate in the village of Umbalapadi, Papanasam Taluk, Tanjore District. The total extent involved is 1.8 acres. This 1.8 acres is comprised in six different survey numbers viz., SURVEY NUMBER EXTENT OF THE PROPERTY 67/5 0.5 Cents. 39/2A 0.11 Cents. 57/11A 0.5 Cents. 25/11 0.06 Cents. 35/1 0.25 Cents. 25/12A 0.09 Cents. The plaintiff placed before Court both oral and documentary evidence to substantiate his possession on the date of suit. The Adangal Extracts 1388 fasli to 1393 fasli i.e. from 1978 to 1983 have been marked. The plaint was presented into Court on 12. 1985. 39/2A 0.11 Cents. 57/11A 0.5 Cents. 25/11 0.06 Cents. 35/1 0.25 Cents. 25/12A 0.09 Cents. The plaintiff placed before Court both oral and documentary evidence to substantiate his possession on the date of suit. The Adangal Extracts 1388 fasli to 1393 fasli i.e. from 1978 to 1983 have been marked. The plaint was presented into Court on 12. 1985. Besides producing the adangal extract, the plaintiff has produced the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 210. 1985. The plaintiff has produced the kist receipts and the certificate by the Revenue Inspector permitting transportation of paddy for domestic consumption in a cart. The Record Officer has also passed an order on 2. 1987 which is nodoubt after the suit, but on application filed before him by the defendant, wherein he has stated that the petitioner i.e., the respondent has not made out any case to record his name as tenant. As against these numerous documents, to prove the plaintiffs possession on the date of suit, the defendant did not produce any document at all to probablise his case. 6. The plaintiff is of course a Government servant. But, a special pleading has been taken by the lower appellate court though such a pleas was not even raised by the defendants in the written statement. There was no cross examination of the plaintiff on the line of reasoning put forward by the lower appellate court. In doing that, the lower appellate court has also introduced its own knowledge or information, whatever it is, without any iota of evidence for the same. According to the lower appellate court Kuruvai Paddy will be only sold for meeting the subsequent samba paddy cultivation and kuruvai paddy is never used for personal consumption in Tanjore District. I do not find any such stand taken by the defendant either by way of suggestion by the plaintiff or in the course of evidence, when he was in the witness box. The documents produced by the plaintiff would show that he was granted permission to transport the paddy from his filed for home consumption, by the authorities who are empowered to grant such permission. I do not know how it can be considered without any basis at all by the lower appellate court that the recitals have been made there by the plaintiff to create evidence as though he was expecting a legal action. I do not know how it can be considered without any basis at all by the lower appellate court that the recitals have been made there by the plaintiff to create evidence as though he was expecting a legal action. Just because the plaintiff is a Government employee, there is no rule which says that he cannot enjoy the property personally. He can enjoy and cultivate the property through his agents or with his trusted men and pannayals and he can supervise the same now and then. 7. Coming to adangal extracts, the learned Appellate Judge simply says that the adangal extracts do not convincingly prove that the lands in question are in possession and cultivation of the plaintiff. I do not know what the lower appellate court means by “convincingly prove”. In order to prove possession of land and cultivation of land it is the only account maintained by the Revenue Department. Thus, the adangal extract is a statutory register. In the adangal extract maintained by the Revenue Department, after inspection, the name of the plaintiff has been given as the person in enjoyment of the land. To brush aside the same as not proving convincingly the case of the plaintiff, the lower appellate court would be justified only if there are materials to show that it cannot be true. The defendant has not produced any document to show his possession. If really the defendant was in possession, he could have produced the adangal extracts to show his possession. If there are two adangal extracts one showing the plaintiffs possession and the other showing the defendants enjoyment, perhaps the lower appellate court was justified in rejecting that document produced by the plaintiff. To bolster up the evidence on his side on the aspect of possession and enjoyment, the plaintiff has produced the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector permitting him to transport the paddy from his property. In respect of the very lands, the defendant applied for recording his name as tenant, but failed. The defendant has not produced any document at all to show his possession of the property. The documents produced by the defendant have nothing to do nor anything to say on the aspect of possession. 8. There is yet another confusion in the mind of the lower Appellate Court. The defendant has not produced any document at all to show his possession of the property. The documents produced by the defendant have nothing to do nor anything to say on the aspect of possession. 8. There is yet another confusion in the mind of the lower Appellate Court. It is not the plaintiffs case that he is a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act. The plaintiff merely on the basis of possession and enjoyment has filed a suit to protect his possession. Therefore, all that he need to prove is that on the date of suit, he was in possession. If he has stated that he is in possession of the property as a cultivating tenant or in any proceeding where his status as a cultivating tenant has to be established, perhaps the fact that the plaintiff is a Government employee and therefore, he could not have contributed his physical labour for cultivation may become relevant. 9. Thus, we find that there is a confusion in the mind of the lower appellate Court, in that the lower appellate court has apparently thought that the plaintiff has come forward with the suit claiming to be cultivating tenant. It is not the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs case is that he is in possession and that he wants to protect his possession and the possession of the plaintiff need not be that of a cultivating tenant. In fact, when the defendant applied for recording his name in the Register as a tenant, it was dismissed. Again, the lower appellate court has observed as follows: “The possibility of the defendant being in actual possession and enjoyment rather than the plaintiff is more ….” I do not find from where the lower appellate court is able to get the materials to make such observation. In a court of law, we are not concerned with the possibility, when it comes to proof of possession. As against the adangal extracts, proceedings of the Revenue Officials, the proceedings of the Recording Officials, the proceedings of the Recording Officer, not a scrap of paper has been produced on the side of the defendant. Yet, the lower appellate court would reject all the evidence and enter into a confused discussion, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Nowhere the plaintiff has stated that he is engaged in personal cultivation. Yet, the lower appellate court would reject all the evidence and enter into a confused discussion, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Nowhere the plaintiff has stated that he is engaged in personal cultivation. As against the case of the plaintiff, the lower appellate court ought to have noted that the defendant has come forward with a thoroughly inconsistent case. The case pleaded in the written statement is quiet different from what is stated in his evidence. But yet, adopting strange reasons and as a result of confusion and ignoring material evidence on record, the lower appellate court has come to an erroneous decision, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Hence, I have no hesitation in holding that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court has to be set aside pro tanto. 10. In the result, the second appeal is allowed with costs throughout, setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and restoring that of the trial court.