Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1808 (MAD)

C. Vairamuthu v. N. Selvaraj

2015-04-06

C.S.KARNAN

body2015
Judgment 1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The plaintiff/appellant has filed a Original Suit in O.S.No.239 of 2005, on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul, against the defendants/respondents herein, stating that the suit schedule mentioned property were leased out by the defendants to and in favour of the plaintiff for cultivation purpose and it had registered the lease on the file of Sub Registrar's Office, Vadamadurai, for a period of 21 years with effect from 12.09.2005, after paying the lease amount of a sum of Rs.1,50,150/-. The lessor has to spend the said lease amount for the poor people. The said lease deed had been executed by A.S. Amjath Ibrahim, to and in favour of the plaintiff. From the date of lease, the plaintiff occupied the same and has been enjoying it without any interference. Under the circumstances, the first defendant, interfered with the plaintiff's cultivation, stating that he is the son of the erstwhile lease holder. The plaintiff also disclosed that the owner of the suit schedule property had assigned the said land on lease basis. 2. The plaintiff has further stated that the erstwhile lease holder's lease period had expired. Further, the father of the first defendant had illegally operated the metal quarry in the said suit schedule mentioned property during his lease period. Hence, the District Collector had imposed a penalty on him for operating the quarry illegally. The plaintiff after obtaining the lease had made a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, for operating the quarry, for which, the Village Administrative Officer, stated that the plaintiff is a registered lease holder and as such, the civil rights over the said property is vested with him. The father of the defendant was imposed with a fine of Rs.6,52,419/-, as per the District Collector's Proceedings dated 09.05.2005. The erstwhile lease holder i.e., the father of the first defendant, viz., Nagappan had expired. However, in order to recover the fine amount, the recovery proceedings are pending on the file of the Taluk Tahsildar, Vadamadurai. Under the circumstances, the first defendant had made an attempt for occupying the suit schedule mentioned property for the operation of an illegal quarry in order to pay loan amount of the father of the first defendant. The second and third defendants are claiming ownership over the said property and therefore, they have been impleaded as necessary parties. 3. Under the circumstances, the first defendant had made an attempt for occupying the suit schedule mentioned property for the operation of an illegal quarry in order to pay loan amount of the father of the first defendant. The second and third defendants are claiming ownership over the said property and therefore, they have been impleaded as necessary parties. 3. The plaintiff further stated that on 19.10.2005, the first defendant and his accomplices trespassed into the property and disturbed the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff had lodged a complaint before the Vadamadurai Police Station, after preventing the illegal entry made by the defendant. Therefore, the defendants or their men have no locus standi to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, who is enjoying the said property, as a lawful leaseholder. Hence, the plaintiff prayed for a permanent mandatory injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents etc., from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and other reliefs. 4. The first defendant had filed a written statement and refuted the averments of the plaint. The first defendant stated that the suit schedule mentioned property originally belonged to Keelakarai Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Swami who had expired in the year 1959 and he was buried at Ramanadapuram District. After his death, his brother and sister viz., Mohamed Jiya Vudeen, Jeeni Mohammed and Mohammed Kathija Uma respectively secured the property as legal-heirs. The said Mohammed Jiya Vudeen had expired after leaving his legal heirs, viz., Mohammed Ibrahim and Mohammed Abdul Kadher. The other brother Jeeni Mohammed was not married and had expired. The said Jeeni Mohammed and his sister Mohammed Kathija Uma had sold the property on 02.07.1960 to and in favour of A.S.Abdul Salam, who is the son of Kathija Uma. Thereafter, Mohammed Ibrahim, Mohammed Abdul Kadher and Abdul Salam, being the legal-heris, have secured the property. 5. The first defendant further stated that the income derived from the property was spent for Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Swamiji Darga by Mohammed Ibrahim, who is the Manager of the Committee. After executing the sale deed to and in favour of A.S.Abdul Salam, the rest of the land had been given orally as gift to and in favour of Mohammed Fathima, wife of Mohammed Ibrahim. Mohammed Abdul Khader transferred the said land to and in favour of Rahmat Ahmed Mahmootha Beevi, daughter of Mohammed Ibrahim. The defendant had also annexed a genealogy diagram. 6. Mohammed Abdul Khader transferred the said land to and in favour of Rahmat Ahmed Mahmootha Beevi, daughter of Mohammed Ibrahim. The defendant had also annexed a genealogy diagram. 6. The first defendant had further stated that the Darga Committee had let out the property on lease basis for cultivation to his father, viz., Nagappan. Besides, a list had been prepared regarding the article and the same was handed over to his father. Further, his father had paid the lease amount to Darga Committee during the function time. The Darga Administrative Committee also sent letters to his father. The defendant stated that the schedule mentioned property had been leased out to the plaintiff by A.S. Amjat Ibrahim, S/o. Syed Usuf as the Chairman and direct legal-heirs of the deceased Swamy. Mr. A.S. Amjat Ibrahim is not possessing any rights over the said schedule mentioned property. The first defendant had also denied that the plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoying the same as lessee from 12.09.2005. The plaintiff had categorically admitted that the father of the first defendant was the lessee and enjoying the same. Now, the first defendant had succeeded the property after the expiry of his father as lessee and until now, the lease is existing in favour of this defendant. 7. The first defendant additionally added that his father was never evicted from the suit property due to the illegal operation of the quarry. Immediately after knowing that Amjat Ibrahim had levelled an application to the Mines and Minerals Department for operating the quarry, this defendant made an objection to the Director of Mines and Minerals and also to the District Collector, Dindigul, besides other Competent Authorities by way of telegram. The said Amjat Ibrahim had prepared forged documents and has filed a case before the District Munsif Court, Vedasandoor and Sub Court, Dindigul, for which, the defendant had filed caveat petition No.327 of 2005, on 19.10.2005. Thereafter, on 21.10.2005, the said Amjat Ibrahim suppressed the caveat petition and created a lease deed through the plaintiff and has filed the suit with mala-fide intention in order to secure a judicial order fraudulently. The first defendant had also dispatched a caveat petition to Amjat Ibrahim, who allegedly claims right over the property. 8. Thereafter, on 21.10.2005, the said Amjat Ibrahim suppressed the caveat petition and created a lease deed through the plaintiff and has filed the suit with mala-fide intention in order to secure a judicial order fraudulently. The first defendant had also dispatched a caveat petition to Amjat Ibrahim, who allegedly claims right over the property. 8. The first defendant further stated that the suit schedule mentioned property to an extent of 3.5 acres has been occupied by the defendant and he is in enjoyment of the same. The defendant remits tax for the said property. At the time of filing the suit, the crop was in germination and after it matured, it was harvested by the defendant. This fact had not been disclosed by the plaintiff in the averments of the plaint. The allegation levelled against the father of this plaintiff stating that he had operated an illegal quarry, for which, the District Collector, had imposed fine is totally false. This defendant never disturbed the plaintiff and the first defendant is in physical possession. The husband of the plaintiff had levelled a false complaint before the Police on 20.10.2005. The first defendant further stated that the plaintiff had furnished false statement before the Court and also not disclosed the caveat petition filed by this defendant and fraudulently obtained interim injunction. Hence, the said suit has to be dismissed in limini. Further, the relief sought by the plaintiff, suit value and cause of action and original jurisdiction are not maintainable before this Court. Hence, the first defendant entreated the Court to dismiss the suit. 9. The second and third defendants have also field a written statement and resisted the above said suit. These defendants submit that the suit schedule mentioned property was belonging to Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Swami and the same was in enjoyment by him. Thereafter, he expired in the year 1959. He was buried at Ramanathapuram Distirct. After his death his brothers, viz., Mohamed Jiya Vudeen, Jeeni Mohammed and Mohammed Kathija Uma respectively secured the property as legal-heirs. The said Mohammed Jiya Vudeen had expired after leaving his legal heirs, viz., Mohammed Ibrahim, Mohammed Abdul Kadher. The other brother Jeeni Mohammed was not married and had expired. The said Jeeni Mohammed and his sister Mohammed Kathija Uma had sold the property on 02.07.1960 to and in favour of A.S.Abdul Salam, viz., the second defendant. The said Mohammed Jiya Vudeen had expired after leaving his legal heirs, viz., Mohammed Ibrahim, Mohammed Abdul Kadher. The other brother Jeeni Mohammed was not married and had expired. The said Jeeni Mohammed and his sister Mohammed Kathija Uma had sold the property on 02.07.1960 to and in favour of A.S.Abdul Salam, viz., the second defendant. Thereafter, Mohammed Ibrahim, Mohammed Abdul Kadher and Abdul Salam, maintained the Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Darga through its income. After alienating the property to and in favour of the second defendant, the rest of the share was given to third defendant as a gift by Mohammed Fathima, w/o. Mohammed Ibrahim and Mohammed Abdul Kadher. These defendants also filed a genealogy diagram. 10. The defendants 2 and 3 further stated that they leased out the schedule mentioned property to and in favour of one Nagappa Naidu, who was the father of the first defendant for cultivation purpose. At the time of assigning the said land, the belongings of the Darga was also handed over to the father of the first defendant, after preparing a list. The father of the first defendant had remitted the lease amount to the Darga at the time of Darga festival. The defendants 2 and 3 denied that the schedule mentioned property is in possession of Amjat Ibrahim, S/o. Syed Yusuf. Further, the said Amjat Ibrahim was not the President of Darga Committee. As such, A.S. Amjat Ibrahim had no rights or enjoyment over the schedule mentioned property. Using the relationship of being the son of Syed Usuf, he had created bogus documents and claiming rights over the property. 11. The defendants 2 and 3 further submit that the plaintiff is not in physical possession of the property on the strength of lease deed dated 12.09.2005. The plaintiff himself had admitted in the plaint averment stating that the father of the first defendant was enjoying suit schedule mentioned property for a long time as lessee. As such, the claim of the plaintiff that he is the lessee of the property is not maintainable. After the death of the first defendant's father, the first defendant is enjoying the said property as lessee with the permission of these defendants. The said lease is in force in favour of the first defendant herein. The said property was never assigned to the plaintiff herein. After the death of the first defendant's father, the first defendant is enjoying the said property as lessee with the permission of these defendants. The said lease is in force in favour of the first defendant herein. The said property was never assigned to the plaintiff herein. The said Amjat Ibrahim made a petition to the Mines and Minerals Department on 16.10.2005 for lease and the same was objected by the defendants before the Director, Mines and Minerals and the District Collector, Dindigul. The first defendant had also filed a caveat petition against A.S. Amjat Ibrahim. Without disclosing the caveat petition, the plaintiff has filed the above suit along with the forged lease deed. The plaintiff had misconceived the suit. The schedule mentioned property to an extent of about 3.5 acres has been leased out to the first defendant herein by these defendants. The first defendant is remitting the tax in the name of second and third defendants. The plaintiff had not disclosed the factual position of the case in his plaint averment. Hence, the plaintiff's prayer to dismiss the above suit inlimini. 12. The plaintiff had filed a reply statement stating that the second and third defendants have no connection with the schedule mentioned property in any manner. Actually, the defendants 1, 2 and 3 jointly disturbed the plaintiff's possession. The property belongs to Keelakarai Mahananda Baba, Oliyulla Nayagam and patta has also been issued in his name. The legal-heirs, viz., Syed Yusuf and A.S. Amjat Ibrahim had enjoyed the said property, after the death of Mahananda Baba, Oliyulla Nayagam. The legal-heirs had leased out the schedule mentioned property to and in favour of the plaintiff herein for a period of 21 years for a lease amount of Rs.7,150/- per year. The said lease deed has been registered. The first defendant's father had been enjoying the said property as a lessee and after the expiry of the lease period, the said property has been assigned to the plaintiff. Further, during the lease period, the father of the first defendant had operated an illegal metal quarry without obtaining a proper lease and licence. Hence, the District Collector had initiated necessary action and imposed a penalty by way of written order. In the said order, the District Collector has mentioned that the schedule mentioned property stands in the name of Amjat Ibrahim. Hence, the District Collector had initiated necessary action and imposed a penalty by way of written order. In the said order, the District Collector has mentioned that the schedule mentioned property stands in the name of Amjat Ibrahim. In addition to that the first defendant had written letters to the said Amjat Ibrahim, as owner of the schedule mentioned property. 13. The plaintiff further stated that while he was carrying out agricultural operations, the first defendant has instigated the second and third defendants to interfere with the suit property. Further, the second and third defendants had not filed separate written statement in the said suit. Instead of that, they adopted the written statement of the first defendant. As such, the second and third defendants have not shown any interest. The second and third defendants had issued a legal notice through their Power Agent and as such, the defendants 2 and 3 have not come forward to contest the suit independently. 14. After considering the averments of the plaint and written statements, the learned Sub Judge had framed two issues, viz., "(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain a permanent injunction? (ii) What is the other relief?" 15. On the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 10 exhibits were marked. On the side of the defendants, three witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and 30 exhibits were marked. 16. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that he is the husband of the plaintiff. The suit schedule mentioned property belongs to Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam, Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram District, who had enjoyed the said property during his lifetime and had remitted tax to the Government. After his death, one A.S.Amjat Ibrahim, son of Syed Yousuf, had succeeded the property as legal-heir and he is maintaining the suit property as Chairman of Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Darga. P.W.1 further stated that the said Amjat Ibrahim had executed a lease deed for a period of 21 years for carrying out quarry operation and agricultural operation and the lease amount was fixed at Rs.7,150/- per year. The lease deed had been registered on 12.09.2005, on the file of Vadamadurai Sub Registrar Office. The lease amount has to be utilized for welfare of the poor during festivals by the lessor, who also maintains the expenditure account. The lease deed had been registered on 12.09.2005, on the file of Vadamadurai Sub Registrar Office. The lease amount has to be utilized for welfare of the poor during festivals by the lessor, who also maintains the expenditure account. The lessor A.S. Amjat Ibrahim, was maintaining Keelakarai Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Darga and was also maintaining outside properties, as the Secretary of the Darga. This position has been accepted by the Keelakarai Jimma Masoothi Board. The Executive Committee also accepted the lessor's maintenance. 17. P.W.1 further stated that the Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram had conducted an enquiry regarding the schedule mentioned property and other properties and certified that the said A.S. Amjat Ibrahaim had been maintaining the said property. P.W.1 had marked a lease agreement dated 12.09.2005 and patta had been marked as Ex.A3, which stands in the name of Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Swamy. The lessor had issued a concerned letter to carry out metal quarrying in the schedule mentioned property, which has been marked as A4. Further, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani had referred the quarry licence proceedings to the District Collector, Dindigul on 27.12.2006. The District Collector had imposed a fine amount of a sum of Rs.6,52,419/-, on the father of the first defendant. In order to recover the said amount, the Tahsildar, Vadamadurai had initiated proceedings to recover the said amount. Further, the second defendant had expired during the pendency of the case and hence, the defendants 4 to 10 have been ordered as legal-heirs of the deceased second defendant, who had not sought any relief against the plaintiff. On 19.10.2005, the first defendant had associated with 10 accomplices and made wrong entries with the said property. Hence, the criminal complaint had been lodged before the Vadamadurai Police Station. 18. P.W.1 further stated that the plaintiff had adduced statement before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani for obtaining lease and licence for quarrying. During the enquiry, the Taluk Tahsildar, Vedasandoor and Village Administrative Officer have been examined. The Taluk Tahsildar, Vedasandoor had issued order stating that the plaintiff is the lessee and the same had been registered on the Revenue record and the same had been marked as Ex.A6. 19. P.W.1 further stated that the plaintiff's name has been registered in the adangal register in the Fasli year 1416. The plaintiff had remitted kist amount to the statutory authority. 19. P.W.1 further stated that the plaintiff's name has been registered in the adangal register in the Fasli year 1416. The plaintiff had remitted kist amount to the statutory authority. P.W.1 had marked the below mentioned documents, viz., registered lease deed, patta in the name of Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Swami Trust, The Mahananda Baba, Oliyulla Nayagam Swami Trust Board had issued a letter to the lessor. The District Collector Dindigul, had sent a communication to the Directorate of Mines and Minerals based on the complaint lodged by the plaintiff against the first defendant before the Police Station, Vedasandoor. The Tahsildar had initiated proceedings, adangal for the Falsi year 1416 in the name of Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Swami. The plaintiff had remitted tax in the name of Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Swami and Advocate notice was issued to the plaintiff by Ahmed Asaraf and a reply notice was sent by plaintiff to Ahmed Asaraf. P.W.2 had adduced evidence on the same line of P.W.1. 20. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and he had adduced evidence that he never knew Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam. Mohamed Jiya Vudeen, Jeeni Mohammed are the sons of the elder brother of Baba and Mohammed Kathija Uma, elder brother's grand daughter of Baba. After the expiry of Baba, the Executive Committee had not been established. P.W.2 Amjat Ibrahim is the uncle's son of Baba. Further, the Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Darga Committee functioned under the head of Mohammed Ibrahim. The committee has been formed only for for the administration of Darga and not for administration of property. The Jimma Masoothi Board at Keelakarai, is administering the Baba Darga. The Mahananda Baba had leased out the property to his father. He further adduced evidence that he had not known the period of lease, nature of lease and quantum of lease amount. At the time of his father's expiry, the lease was existing. Thereafter, he succeeded the lease after the approval of Rahmat Hameed, Katherbats Ussain and Asaraf Ali. He further admits that he had not produced any receipt in order to prove that he had paid the lease amount. Further, he admits that he had not produced adangal in order to prove his position and he also admitted that his father was imposed with a penalty for carrying out illegal quarrying and the said amount was paid by him. 21. Further, he admits that he had not produced adangal in order to prove his position and he also admitted that his father was imposed with a penalty for carrying out illegal quarrying and the said amount was paid by him. 21. D.W.1 further adduced evidence that the Taluk Tahsildar had issued Registration Certificate stating that the plaintiff is the lessee. The said Registration is still in the name of the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff had lodged a complaint before the Vadamadurai Police station. The other witnesses on the side of the defendants had spoken on the same line of D.W.1. D.W.1 had marked the below mentioned documents:- (1) Complaint lodged by the first defendant before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, (2) letter written by the first defendant to the Director of Mines and Minerals Department, (3) Application to the District Collector, Dindigul, (4) and (5) Acknowledgment cards from the District Collector, Director of Mines (6) Kist receipt issued in the name of Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Swami for the Falsi year 1416, (7) (8) (9) and (10) Kist receipts, (11) invitation for the 32nd Anniversary festival of Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Swami, (12) similar invitation, (13) & 14) Original receipt issued by Keelakarai Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Targa Committee to Nagappa Naidu, (15) mining articles, (16) to (18) legal-heir certificates issued by Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram, (19) and (20) Sale deeds, (21) Mahananda Baba Administrative Committee Resolution, (22) certificate issued by the Committee (23) Identification card, (24) Advertisement regarding Bakrid prayer, (25) legal-heir certificate, (26) Invitation of Anniversary festival of Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Swami, (27) a letter received from Ahamed Asraf, (28) to (30) acknowledgment cards. 22. After recording the evidence of both parties and on perusing the exhibits marked by them and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels from all sides, the learned Sub Judge, Dindigul, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 23. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in the original Suit No.239 of 2005, the defendants had filed an appeal suit No.37 of 2012, before the Principal District Judge, Dindigul. The learned Judge, after framing necessary issues and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on scrutinizing the decree and judgments of the trial Court, had allowed the appeal suit. Consequently, the trial Court decree and judgment was set-aside. 24. The learned Judge, after framing necessary issues and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on scrutinizing the decree and judgments of the trial Court, had allowed the appeal suit. Consequently, the trial Court decree and judgment was set-aside. 24. Not being satisfied with the findings of the first appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the above appeal. 25. The highly competent counsel Mr. P. Thiagarajan appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the decree and judgment has been passed by the first appellate Court without considering the evidence of the plaintiff. Actually, the plaintiff is in physical possession of the schedule mentioned property as lessee on the strength of a registered lease deed dated 12.09.2005. The first defendant claimed the said suit property as lessee for the same property. The legal-heirs of the Mahananda Baba viz., Amjat Ibrahim had executed the said lease agreement for the period of 21 years with effect from 12.09.2005 and quantum of annual lease amount had been determined as a sum of Rs.7,150/- which has been agreed by both parties, viz., the lessor and the plaintiff/lessee. The highly competent counsel further submits that on 19.10.2005, the first defendant and his accomplices trespassed into the schedule mentioned property and interfered with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the property. Hence, a criminal complaint had been lodged before the Vadamadurai Police Station. In order to prove the lawful possession of the plaintiff, registered lease agreement had been marked. In order to prove the wrong entry committed by the defendant, a police complaint had been lodged and as such, the prayer of the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their accomplices, was granted by the trial Court by way of decree and judgment in the original suit. 26. The highly competent counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff further submits that the trial Court had framed two relevant issues and the same was proved in favour of the plaintiff before the trial Court. The first appellate Court had not considered the well discussed judgment of the trial Court. The first defendant himself openly admitted in his cross-examination stating that Vedasandoor Thasildar had registered the land lease against his tenancy record, but the plaintiff is the lessee. Further, the defendants oral claim was that he was the lessee of the property. The first appellate Court had not considered the well discussed judgment of the trial Court. The first defendant himself openly admitted in his cross-examination stating that Vedasandoor Thasildar had registered the land lease against his tenancy record, but the plaintiff is the lessee. Further, the defendants oral claim was that he was the lessee of the property. The father of the first defendant was the lessee of the schedule mentioned property, and after his death, the property was assigned to the plaintiff by way of registered lease deed. The Village Administrative Officer had also certified that the plaintiff is the lessee and his name had been registered in the adangal register which has been maintained by the Village Administrative Officer. The plaintiff had made an application as a lessee before the Revenue Authorities including the District Collector and the Director of Mines and Minerals for operating a metal quarry. The statutory authorities had summoned the plaintiff for enquiry since he is the lawful lessee besides occupying the property. The defendant had categorically admitted that his father had operated illegal mines in the schedule mentioned property, for which, the revenue authorities had imposed fine amount on the father of the first defendant. After his death, the said fine amount had been remitted by the first defendant and as such, the earlier lease granted in favour of the father of the defendant is not sustainable under law since the father of the first defendant had violated the lease conditions. Further, the lessor had not transferred the lease to and in favour of the first defendant. Therefore, the first defendant's claim is not bona-fide besides being unlawful. 27. The highly competent counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the first appellate Court had not considered the tenancy registration record which is being maintained by the Taluk Tahsildar. The tenancy registration record had been marked as Ex.A6, which is a crucial document in the instant case. On the basis of the registered lease deed, the payment of lease tax was remitted by the lessee/plaintiff. The other defendants/respondents 2 to 9 had not challenged the registered lease deed dated 12.09.2005. Therefore, the other defendants have no locus standi to claim any civil rights over the schedule mentioned property as lessor. The learned first appellate Court Judge ought to have considered that the plaintiff is in possession on the basis of admissible documents. The other defendants/respondents 2 to 9 had not challenged the registered lease deed dated 12.09.2005. Therefore, the other defendants have no locus standi to claim any civil rights over the schedule mentioned property as lessor. The learned first appellate Court Judge ought to have considered that the plaintiff is in possession on the basis of admissible documents. The fist defendant had not produced any current documents for occupation of schedule mentioned property. 28. The highly competent counsel appearing for the first respondent/first defendant submits that the Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam Committee had leased out the suit schedule property to and in favour of the father of the first defendant. It was admitted by both parties. The father of the first defendant had paid lease amount to the Mahananda Baba Darga at the time of festival. The first defendant made objections to the District Collector and Director of Mines and Minerals stating that the first defendant was the lessee after the death of his father. Therefore the Revenue Authorities had not passed any specific order to and in favour of the plaintiff, but they have admitted that the plaintiff is the lawful assessee. The first defendant had marked 30 documentary exhibits relating to the property. The same was considered by the first appellate Court, who thereafter, set-aside the judgment of the trial Court. 29. The highly competent counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 9/defendants 2 to 9 submits that the father of the first defendant had occupied the schedule mentioned property as lessee which was originally belonging to Keelakarai Mahananda Baba Oliyulla Nayagam. After his expiry, his brother's sons and grand daughter has succeeded the property as the direct legal-heirs of the deceased Mahananda Baba, as Amjat Ibrahim has no right over the said property. Further, the first defendant has occupied the property as the legal-heirs of the original lessee who was the father of the first defendant. A.S. Amjath Ibrahim had created a bogus document and executed a lease agreement to and in favour of the plaintiff which is not valid. Further, the plaintiff is not in physical possession. 30. Further, the first defendant has occupied the property as the legal-heirs of the original lessee who was the father of the first defendant. A.S. Amjath Ibrahim had created a bogus document and executed a lease agreement to and in favour of the plaintiff which is not valid. Further, the plaintiff is not in physical possession. 30. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that:- (i) The District Collector, who is the top most officer of the District including the Revenue Department had mentioned the owner of the property as "Amjat Ibrahim" after a comprehensive enquiry was conducted for operating illegal quarrying in the schedule mentioned property. As such, it is evident that the owner of the property, viz., A.S.Amjat Ibrahim, son of Syed Yousuf, has executed lease agreement to and in favour of the plaintiff, dated 12.09.2005 for a period of 21 years. The said lease deed has been registered on the file of concerned Sub Registrar's Office, which is existing. (ii) The lease agreement had been executed by A.S. Amjat Ibrahim to and in favour of the plaintiff. The same had been registered on the file of Sub Registrar's Office, Vedasandoor , dated 12.09.2005. The said lease had been registered on the file of Taluk Tahsildar, Vedasanddoor, as lessee on 02.02.2007. Both the documents are existing as such, both are sustainable under law. (iii) The first defendant had admitted that he had not known about the lease period and lease amount. Further, his father was operating an illegal quarry during his life time, for which, the first defendant paid the penalty. Besides this, the defendant had not produced any authenticated document regarding his occupation and payment of lease amount to the lessor. (iv) The first defendant, who is the contesting party in the said suit, had marked 30 exhibits, but had not attached relevant documents in order to prove that the father of the first defendant had occupied the suit schedule mentioned property as lessee and had neither produced any documents to establish the lease period stipulated nor produced any documents to prove the date on which, the lease had been attorned to and in favour of the first defendant. Besides this, the first defendant had not produced current documents i.e., payment of lease amount to the actual lessor. As such, the first defendant cannot claim any civil rights as lessee over the schedule mentioned property. Besides this, the first defendant had not produced current documents i.e., payment of lease amount to the actual lessor. As such, the first defendant cannot claim any civil rights as lessee over the schedule mentioned property. 31. On considering the factual evidence of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides and on perusing the judgments of both Courts and the views mentioned by this Court listed as (i) to (iv), this Court allows the above second appeal. Consequently, the decree and judgment passed in the appeal suit in A.S.No.37 of 2012, dated 29.04.2013 is set-aside. As such, the decree and judgment passed by the Principal Sub Court in O.S.No.239 of 2005, dated 10.08.2012 is confirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs considering the nature of the case.