Judgment :- 1. The defendant/ devasthanam in the suit is the appellant herein. The respondent filed the suit O.S.No.650 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Kumbakonam for bare injunction stating that on 31.3.1969 he entered into a lease agreement in respect of the suit property and pursuant to which he has to covert the land into a coconut thope and thereafter surrender possession to the defendant Devasthanam. The lease period is five years. The respondent can cultivate intermediary crops and pay a sum of Rs.1,800 by way of annual lease to the appellant Devasthanam. As per the said agreement, the respondent planted 600 coconut saplings of which 571 are new well grown trees. The number of yielding trees are only 151. Even though the lease period agreed upon was five years, the respondent continued to be lessee till the date of filing of the suit and he has also paid the lease amount regularly without any arrears. While so, the appellant Devasthanam brought the thope for auction on 9.7.1981. Hence, the suit has been filed for a bare injunction as the respondent incurred an expense of Rs.10,000 for the installation of pumpset and another Rs.10,000 for the construction of shed thereon. Along with these amounts, the appellant Devasthanam has to pay a sum of Rs.10 per tree towards maintenance. 2. The appellant herein contested the claim of the respondent by filing written statement stating that the agreement is only for planting the coconut trees to yield the respondent has to receive the compensation and surrender possession. Even though the lease period expired on 30.6.1973, it was extended for further period of three years and again for further period of five years and as such the lease period came to an end on 30.6.1981. Since the lease period expired, the appellant Devasthanam is entitled to auction the right to take the usufructs. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. 3. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction. (2) Whether the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant. (3) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to. 4. After elaborately discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court had dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiff is not entitled for the protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. (2) Whether the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant. (3) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to. 4. After elaborately discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court had dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiff is not entitled for the protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. Further the trial Court held that by virtue of Sec.51 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act (Act 57 of 1961), the protection of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act has no application to the present suit property which is a thope and hence the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/ plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.38 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Kumbakonam. The learned Subordinate Judge had reversed the decree of the trial Court, finding that the respondent is entitled for the compensation and till the compensation is paid, he is entitled to be in possession of the suit property, and held that the respondent is not entitled for the protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act or under the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act. However, the learned Subordinate Judge held that no prejudice will be caused to the appellant/ defendant if the respondent/ plaintiff is allowed to be in possession for some more time, till the amount of compensation is decided and ultimately decreed the suit, granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff till the compensation is paid to him. As against the said judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the appellant Devasthanam has preferred the second appeal so far as the findings are against them. The respondent herein also filed cross-objection so far as the finding of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiff is not entitled for the protection of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. 6. On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that by virtue of Sec.51 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act, the respondent is not entitled for the benefit of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. Apart from this, there is no plea on behalf of the respondent that he is personally cultivating the lands which is essential for the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. Apart from this, there is no plea on behalf of the respondent that he is personally cultivating the lands which is essential for the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. In the absence of such plea, the finding of the lower appellate Court that the respondent is not entitled for the benefit of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act cannot be interfered with. It is further contended that admittedly the lease of the land is only to convert the same into a thope. Pursuant to the said lease agreement, the respondent also planted 571 coconut trees. The permission to raise intermediary crops in the said thope will not amount to regular cultivating and as such on this ground also the respondent is not entitled for the benefit of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act as held by this Court in the judgment reported in Thiagaraja Sendar v. Sri Pasupatheeswaraswami Devasthanam, Avoor 92 L.W. 524 and Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam (1989)2 L.W. 374. The lower appellate Court having held that the respondent is not entitled for the benefit of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and further held that the lease period already expired, has totally erred in granting a decree for injunction in favour of the respondent that he is entitled to be in possession till the compensation amount is to be paid. In fact when the respondent himself has not pleaded for such relief, the lower appellate Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in grating the same. Hence the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 7. On the contrary, on behalf of the respondent, it is contended that the respondent is entitled for the benefit of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act; especially when there is already an order in his favour under the Record of Tenancy Act that the respondent is the cultivating tenant. The appellants allowed the said order of the Record of Tenancy Tahsildar to stand, it is not open to them now to contend that the respondent is not entitled for the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. In view of the same, the cross-objection filed by the respondent has to be allowed and consequently the second appeal has to be dismissed. 8. In view of the same, the cross-objection filed by the respondent has to be allowed and consequently the second appeal has to be dismissed. 8. The entire question for the disposal of the second appeal revolves on the issue as to whether the respondent is entitled for the benefit of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and the proceedings culminated under the Record of Tenancy Act Ex.A-13 is final and thereby the respondent is entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for. 9. It may be pertinent to note that both the Courts below have held that the respondent herein is not entitled for the benefit of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act by virtue of Sec.51 of the Public Trusts Act. In fact the view taken by the Courts below is supported by the decision of this High Court in the case of Thiagaraja Sendar v. Sri Pasupatheeswaraswami Devasthanam, Avoor 92 L.W. 524 where the learned Judge has held as follows: “The only other question, therefore, is whether the suit tope is entitled to be immune from the protective provisions of the Act. Sec.51(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961. Which I have already extracted, is quite clear on this subject it says that the Act shall not apply to such topes so long as they continue to be sued for such purpose as provided in this Section. At the time I heard arguments from the Bar, I entertained some little doubt as to whether Sec.51(iv) applied only to the lands which had been ‘converted’ into topes. I am however satisfied on deeper consideration that the definition admits of no doubt, having regard it what I consider with respect, to be a clear exposition of the meaning and scope of this provision by Ismail, J., in Sri Panchanatheeraswami Devasthanam by its Trustee v. Barkis Bivi and others Sri Panchanatheeraswami Devasthanam by its Trustee v. Barkis Bivi and others Sri Panchanatheeraswami Devasthanam by its Trustee v. Barkis Bivi and others 1972 T.L.N.J 591: 87 L.W. 282. The learned Judge in that case took the view that the expression ‘converted’ occurring in Sec.51(iv) is not technical sense by the Legislative and that all it meant is that if the land once becomes a tope as defined in Sec.2(29) of the Act, then the land must be regard as having been converted into a tope as contemplated in Sec.51(iv) of the Act and it would fall outside the scope of the Act and it would fall outside the scope of the Act and it will only cease to be so exempt if the land becomes reconverted into something other than a thope. I adopt this view of Ismail, J., as my own. The learned Subordinate Judges view based on the decision of Ismail, J., has therefore, to be upheld as correct in law. For all the above reasons, this second appeal has to be dismissed and I accordingly do so.” The learned Judge while coming to the conclusion that the land having been convicted into a thope is exempted by virtue of Sec.51 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act. He relied upon the Judgment of another learned single Judge reported in Sri Panchanatheeraswami Devasthanam by its Trustee v. Barkis Bivi and others Sri Panchanatheeraswami Devasthanam by its Trustee v. Barkis Bivi and others Sri Panchanatheeraswami Devasthanam by its Trustee v. Barkis Bivi and others 1972 T.L.N.J. 591: 87 L.W. 282. 10. In another case Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam (1989)2 L.W. 374 Mohan, J. (as he then was) has held as follows: “With this back ground I go to the next question raised by Mr.Ramamurthi, learned counsel for the appellant, that the object of Sec.51 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act taken together with other provisions including Sec.52 is for the purpose of fixation of the ceiling limit. For my part, I am unable to see any warrant for such an argument. The language of Sec.51 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act, does not give for such an argument. On the contrary, it is comprehensive enough and does not have any restriction as contended by Mr.Ramamurthi, learned counsel for the appellant, when it says ‘nothing contained’ it means all the provisions contained in the act would cease to apply and it cannot be restricted to any fixation of ceiling. On the contrary, it is comprehensive enough and does not have any restriction as contended by Mr.Ramamurthi, learned counsel for the appellant, when it says ‘nothing contained’ it means all the provisions contained in the act would cease to apply and it cannot be restricted to any fixation of ceiling. It is well settled law that in the guise of interpretation, the Courts are not empowered to enact new provision. If the contention of Mr.Ramamurthi, learned counsel for the appellant, is accepted, it would mean that this Court is enacting a new provision by introducing words in Sec.51 which certainly not the intention of the Legislature. Therefore I find that the submission of the learned Advocate General is correct. Once this conclusion is arrived at it will follow that the appellant cannot claim to be a cultivating tenant and on that basis, there cannot be any injunction. Accordingly, the second appeal stands dismissed.” 11. On the basis of these two judgments, this Court is of the view that the Courts below have rightly held that the respondent is not entitled for the benefit of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon another judgment in the case of Doraiswamy v. Sri Sangameswaraswamy Devasthanam, Bhavani (1995)1 L.W. 43 (J.S.). This is also a judgment rendered by Mohan, J. (as he then was). Of course, while deciding this case, none of the earlier judgments have been brought to the notice of the learned Judge. So far as this case is concerned, the learned Judge having held that Sec.51 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act exempts the thope, proceeded on the basis that exemption is only from the application of the provisions of the said Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act. Hence for the said properties, the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is applicable and more over the tenant had already obtained an order from the revenue authorities, recording himself as a cultivating tenant and that will be binding on both the parties. In view of the order passed under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act. The tenant is entitled for the injunction. 13. In view of the order passed under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act. The tenant is entitled for the injunction. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that in the case on hand also Ex.A-13 is the proceedings of the revenue authorities under the said Record of Tenancy Rights Act and the lower appellate Court ought to have found that the respondent is entitled for the benefit of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act which is the question for consideration in the cross-appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that in view of the conflicting judgments, the matter may be referred to a Division Bench. 14. I carefully, considered this argument of the learned counsel for the respondent. So far as the case decided in Thiagaraja Sendar v. Sri Pasupatheeswaraswami Devasthanam, Avoor 92 L.W. 524 and Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam (1989)2 L.W. 374 there is no dispute that by virtue of Sec.51 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act, the thopes are exempted. Sec.62 of the said Act further clarifies that theTamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act stands repealed so far as the trust properties are concerned. That is why all the three judges pertaining to the cases reported in Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam (1989)2 L.W. 374 and Sri Panchanatheeraswami Devasthanam by its Trustee v. Barkis Bivi 1972 T.L.N.J. 591: 87 L.W. 282 have categorically held that the tenants are not entitled for the benefit of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. 15. When it is held that the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act has no application to the thope properties and the tenant cannot claim by right under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. It goes without saying that the tenant has no right to invoke the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. When the initiation of the proceeding itself is not lawful and by virtue of Sec.62 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act, when the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act stands repealed so far as the trust properties are concerned, then no revenue authorities can have any jurisdiction to entertain any application under the repealed Act. When the initiation of the proceeding itself is not lawful and by virtue of Sec.62 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act, when the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act stands repealed so far as the trust properties are concerned, then no revenue authorities can have any jurisdiction to entertain any application under the repealed Act. Hence, the revenue authorities are totally bereft of jurisdiction to entertain any application by the tenant under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Act. If that be so, Ex.A-13 being the proceedings without jurisdiction is null and void and as such the same is vitiated for want of jurisdiction. Consequently, the same cannot be considered. 16. In the case reported in Doraiswamy v. Sri Sangameswaraswamy Devasthanam, Bhavani (1995) 1 L.W. 43 (J.S.) Mohan, J. (as he then was) had totally overlooked this vital factor and merely proceeded on the basis that the proceedings of the revenue officers is binding on the parties, which in the view of this Court, is not correct. It is well laid principles that any proceedings without jurisdictions null and void and the same is liable to be eschewed or avoided. Hence the judgment in Doraiswamy v. Sri Sangameswaraswamy Devasthanam, Bhavani (1995)1 L.W. 43 (J.S.) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent may not be any help. 17. Since this Court is totally in agreement with the principles laid down in Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam Saravanan v. Sri Vedaranyeswaraswami Devasthanam (1989)2 L.W. 374 and Thiagaraja Sendar v. Sri Pasupatheeswaraswami Devasthanam, Avoor 92 L.W. 524 as well as Sri Panchanatheeraswami Devasthanam by its Trustee v. Barkis Bivi 1972 T.L.N.J. 591: 87 L.W. 282 this Court confirmed the findings of the Courts below that the respondent herein is not entitled for the protection of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. 18. Now the question for consideration is whether the lower appellate Court is correct in granting the injunction in favour of the respondent on the ground that he is entitled to be in possession of the thope till the compensation is paid. 19. First of all there is no such plea by the respondent himself in the plaint. 18. Now the question for consideration is whether the lower appellate Court is correct in granting the injunction in favour of the respondent on the ground that he is entitled to be in possession of the thope till the compensation is paid. 19. First of all there is no such plea by the respondent himself in the plaint. The relief sought for in the plaint is “to restrain the defendant, his men, agents, subordinates and all persons claiming through him from in any way interfering with his (plaintiffs) possession over the suit properties.” 20. At the outset, it can be safely concluded that such an indefinite prayer cannot be granted; especially when the respondent has admitted that his possession is permissive. 21. If really the plaintiff is interested in safeguarding his right for compensation, he ought to have taken necessary steps to ascertain the quantum of compensation. There is absolutely no written agreement with regard to the terms between the parties. In the absence of any material to ascertain the compensation amount this Court is of the view that the lower appellate Court has totally erred in granting in order of injunction in favour of the respondent. Further the lower appellate Court is not correct in observing that instead of leasing out the property to third parties, the interest of the appellant is not prejudiced by the respondents continuation of the suit property. 22. The suit having been laid in the year 1981 and now that almost 20 years over. This Court is of the view that even assuming the respondent is entitled for any compensation, he might have made it up by the enjoyment of the suit property which is the coconut thope for the past 20 years and as such the respondent is not entitled for any relief. The appellant is entitled to auction the right to take the yield from the thope in order to augment their income. 23. In the result, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and consequently the second appeal is allowed with cost Rs.2,000. The cross-appeal is dismissed.