Judgment :- COMMON JUDGMENT: A. Kulasekaran, J. Govindasamy Gramany is the appellant in all the appeals. The appellant is one of the respondents in L.A.O.P.s before the reference court, which was referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for deciding the ownership of the lands acquired and for apportionment of compensation. The reference court by a common order has held that Rathinam Chettiar and Kalathy Chettiar, sons of Annamalai Chettiar are the real and rightful owners of the land acquired and they are entitled to compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the above appeals. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the reference court has failed to consider that the appellant is a permanent tenant for more than 44 years in respect of the lands acquired; that the court below erred in finding that Rathinam Chettiar and Kalathy Chettiar are the owners of the lands acquired; that the deceased Somasundaram Chettiar is the original owner of the property and after his demise the appellant became tenant in respect of the lands acquired under his legal heirs; that the court below failed to consider Exs. R11 and R12, judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 210 of 1975 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry wherein the injunction in respect of the lands acquired has been granted against Annamalai Chettiar; that the said decree became final as such Rathinam Chettiar and Kalathy Chettiar are not entitled to any compensation; that Natesa Gramani is none other than the brother of the appellant and both of them are lessees under Ponnammal, D/o. Somasundaram Chettiar; that the finding of the courts below that the lease is not in respect of the suit property is unsustainable; that the appellant herein has spent about Rs.50,000/- and planted 1000 Palmirah trees which was not considered by the land acquisition officer and the court below; and that the appellant is entitled to 90% of the compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer. 3. Mr. Sasidharan, learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) appearing for the first respondent in all the appeals submitted that the award passed by the land acquisition officer as well as the reference court are sustainable in law as such interference of this court is not warranted and prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 4. Mr. 3. Mr. Sasidharan, learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) appearing for the first respondent in all the appeals submitted that the award passed by the land acquisition officer as well as the reference court are sustainable in law as such interference of this court is not warranted and prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 4. Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for R.5 and R.6 submitted that Annamalai Chettiar has purchased the property in auction sale under document dated 26-11-1921 and after his demise Rathinam Chettiar and Kalathy Chettiar succeeded his estate as such they are entitled to the entire compensation amount; that the suit in O.S. No. 210 of 1975 is nothing but a fraudulent suit, however the findings rendered therein do not confer any right to the appellant herein; that the appellant has not proved by producing any valid document to show that he is a lessee in respect of the property; that the documents placed before the reference court by the appellant is inadmissible in law and prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 5. Mr. R. Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for Respondents 7 to 10 and Mr. D. Sivakumar appearing for the respondents R11 to R18 in A.S. No. 251 of 1991 also oppose the appeals and prayed for dismissal of the same. 6. The issue involved in these appeals is i. Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation as prayed for or not? 7. The facts involved in this appeal are as follows: The subject matter of the property originally belonged to Ramachandra Gramani which was purchased in court auction under document dated 18-11-1921 by Annamalai Chettiar. The sale certificate was also issued by the court in favour of Annamalai Chettiar on 22-07-1922. it is alleged by the appellant that Somasundaram Chettiar, while he was in abroad has instructed his partner namely Annamalai Chettiar to purchase the said property in auction sale on his behalf, but Annamalai Chettiar has purchased in his name though the consideration was allegedly passed from Somasundaram Chettiar. After the demise of Somasundaram Chettiar, his sister Ponnammal said to have succeeded to his estate and after the demise of Ponnammal, Doraisamy Chettiar, her son acquired the property by way of inheritance. The appellant and his brother Natesa Gramani have allegedly become lessee in respect of the property under Ponnammal and after her death, the lease was recognised by legal representative namely Doraisamy. The appellant and his brother Natesa Gramani have allegedly become lessee in respect of the property under Ponnammal and after her death, the lease was recognised by legal representative namely Doraisamy. It is also the case of the appellant that Annamalai Chettiar attempted to interfere with the possession of the appellant, with the result a suit was filed by him in O.S. No. 210 of 1975 on the file of the Subcourt, Pondicherry for bare injunction, which was also decreed in favour of the appellant and it became final as no appeal has been preferred against the same. It is also canvassed by the appellant that he continued to be in possession of the property for the last 4 or 5 decades till he was disposessed under the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant was also served with the copy of the notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act. The legal heirs of Kalathy Chettiar and Rathinam Chettiar, sons of Annamalai Chettiar has claimed compensation at Rs.1000/- per "kuzhi" and the appellant claims compensation of Rs.63,000/- as cultivating tenant. The land acquisition officer has referred the matter under Section 30 of the Act to the competent civil court. 8. Before the reference court, the appellant and respondents herein have let in oral and documentary evidence. The reference court after considering the documentary and oral evidence has come to the conclusion that Rathinam Chettiar and Kalathy Chettiar are the absolute owners of the land acquired and they are entitled to compensation. 9. Exs. A1 to A4 are lease deeds allegedly executed by Ponnammal in favour of Natesa Gramani. Ex. A5 is the xerox copy of the lease deed executed by Govindasamy Gramani to Doraisamy Chettiar. Ex. R6 is the xerox copy of the lease deed executed by Natesa Gramani in favour of Doraisamy Chettiar. In the said documents stamp vendor's name and serial number of the stamp paper are not mentioned. Ex. R21 is the lease deed executed by Venugopal Naicker in favour of Natesa Gramani and Ex. R22 is the copy of the lease deed executed by Chinna Kounder and Periya Kounder in favour of Ponnammal. Ex. R23 is the copy of the lease deed executed by Chinna Kounder and Periasamy Gounder in favour of Doraisamy Chettiar. In Ex. R23 also the stamp vendor's name and serial No. of the stamp paper are not mentioned. R22 is the copy of the lease deed executed by Chinna Kounder and Periya Kounder in favour of Ponnammal. Ex. R23 is the copy of the lease deed executed by Chinna Kounder and Periasamy Gounder in favour of Doraisamy Chettiar. In Ex. R23 also the stamp vendor's name and serial No. of the stamp paper are not mentioned. The above said lease deeds no way helpful to the appellant herein to substantiate his claim, that he was a cultivating tenant. 10. The learned counsel appearing for appellant relied much on Exs. R11 and R12. The decree and Judgment passed in O.S. No. 210 of 1975 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. The said suit was filed by Govindasamy Gramani and Doraisamy Chettiar against Annamalai Chettiar for bare injunction. Pending suit, Annamalai Chettiar passed away, hence his legal heirs namely Rathina Chettiar, Kalathi Chettiar and Sankari Ammal were impleaded. Though the suit was decreed as prayed for, the trial court has pointed out that Ex.A7 to A9 are letters written by Annamalai Chettiar whereby Annamalai Chettiar has sought opinion of Somasundaram Chettiar regarding the auction sale. It is also further found in O.S.No.210 of 1975 by the trial court that the said Ponnammal came into the possession of the suit property not as a lessee under Annamalai Chettiar but on some other unexplained ground which is evident in Ex.R.12. Though the suit in O.S.No.210 of 1975 was decreed, the findings given by the trial court has negatived or vacated the relief granted to the appellant herein. No appeal was preferred by either party against the said judgment. 11. The case of the appellant is that he is a permanent tenant under the legal heirs of Somasundara Chettiar. In order to succeed, he sought to establish that not only the property in dispute belonged to his lessor, but also he was duly appointed lessee. Once it was established the property in dispute belonged to Annamalai chettiar, not Somasundara Chettiar and that finding is no longer open to challenge, the question of going into other aspect as to whether the appellant was or not a lessee would not survive for decision. Followed the decision in Mahant Narayangiri Guru Mahant Someswarigiri Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in ( AIR 1977 SC 628 ). More over, the appellant has not proved that he was a lessee under Somasundara Chettiar or his legal heirs. Followed the decision in Mahant Narayangiri Guru Mahant Someswarigiri Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in ( AIR 1977 SC 628 ). More over, the appellant has not proved that he was a lessee under Somasundara Chettiar or his legal heirs. Admittedly, the legal heirs of Somasundara Chettiar have not filed any appeal. 12. The Trial Court, after careful consideration of material records produced before it has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant. The reasoning and finding given by the Court below are based on oral and documentary evidence as such no interference is warranted. 13. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. No costs.