JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.01.2001 made in A.S. No. 62 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 27.07.1998 made in O.S. No. 68 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali. 2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 3. Suit for recovery of possession, after removing the structure illegally put up by the defendants 1 & 2. 4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff's mutt and the suit property has been leased out to the defendants 2 & 3 pursuant to the lease deeds obtained from them separately in respect of the suit property and in this connection, the defendants 2 & 3 have also laid action against the plaintiff's mutt in the Revenue Court for the determination of the rent in respect of the suit property. The first defendant is the son of the second defendant. The defendants 2 & 3 are brothers. The plaintiff's mutt had given permission to the defendants 2 & 3 to put up house structure on the suit property separately for residential purpose orally. While so, the first defendant with the connivance of the second defendant had illegally put up the house construction on the suit property measuring an extent of 0.03 cents on 13.03.1993 but the first defendant is not entitled to put up house structure in the suit property and hence, as the house structure put up on the suit property had been illegally raised by the defendants 1 & 2, according to the plaintiff's mutt, it had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate relief’s. 5. The case of the defendants 1 & 2, in brief, is that the land measuring 0.42 cents situated in suit survey Nos. The case of the defendants 1 & 2, in brief, is that the land measuring 0.42 cents situated in suit survey Nos. 226/3, 226/4 had been the subject matter of the lease deeds executed between the plaintiff's mutt and the defendants 2 & 3 and the same had been the subject matter of the lease arrangement entered into between the plaintiff's mutt and the father of the defendants 2 & 3 and accordingly, from the days of their father, the defendants 2 & 3 had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in all measuring an extent of 0.42 cents and enjoying the benefits appurtenant thereto by raising trees etc., and enjoying the same and accordingly, enjoying the suit property both for residential as well as for cultivation purpose and accordingly, paying necessary rent to the plaintiff's mutt and the second defendant is blessed with three sons including the first defendant and the third defendant has no issue and accordingly, the first defendant in the property demised to him put up house structures separately for the convenient enjoyment of his family members including his three sons along with their family and their grandsons and accordingly, put up individual thatched house structures on the suit property for the convenient enjoyment of their family altogether and accordingly, the second defendant and his family members had been enjoying the suit property as above stated by raising trees, cultivating crops etc., and therefore, the case of the first defendant that the defendants 1 & 2 had illegally put up house structure on the suit property without the consent of the plaintiff's mutt is false and the plaintiff cannot prevent the defendants from enjoying the suit property by raising house structure for their convenient enjoyment and the house structure had been put up long back to the knowledge of the plaintiff and with the false motive, the present case has been laid by the plaintiff and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. 6. The case of the third defendant, in brief, is that he is no way connected with the property, on which, the alleged house structure has been put up by the defendants 1 & 2 and therefore, he is an unnecessary party to the suit proceedings and he is entitled to obtain the benefits under the lease agreement entered with the plaintiff's mutt in respect of his demised portion and accordingly, he has been enjoying the property demised to him by putting up house structure etc., and hence, the suit has to be dismissed as against him. 7. In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 has been marked. On the side of the defendants' DWs1 & 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to 7 were marked. Exs.C1 and 2 were also marked. 8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial Court was pleased to decree the suit as prayed for. On appeal by the defendants 1 & 2, the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and by allowing the appeal preferred by the defendants 1 & 2, dismissed the suit laid by the plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. 9. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: “(i) In the absence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and first defendant, whether the first defendant could as of right put up a superstructure in the suit property? (ii) Whether the first defendant is to be regarded as a trespasser of the suit property and therefore, he should be evicted? (iii) In the face of the admission of D.W.2 (second defendant) father of first defendant, that the first defendant had put up the superstructure without the consent of the plaintiffs, which by itself entail the removal of the superstructure?” 10. (iii) In the face of the admission of D.W.2 (second defendant) father of first defendant, that the first defendant had put up the superstructure without the consent of the plaintiffs, which by itself entail the removal of the superstructure?” 10. It is not in dispute that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff's mutt and it is also not in dispute that inclusive of the suit property, in all an extent of 0.42 cents in survey Nos.226/3 & 226/4 had been leased out to the father of the defendants 2 & 3 and thereafter to the defendants 2 & 3 by the plaintiff's mutt and accordingly, it is found that the defendants 2 & 3, right from the days of their father, had been enjoying the above said extent of land of the plaintiff's mutt by raising crops etc., and also putting up house structure therein for their residential purpose and enjoying all the advantages appurtenant thereto and as such, it is found that it is not in dispute that the defendants 2 & 3 are the cultivating tenants of the demised land in question as aforestated. It is also the admitted case of the plaintiff that the defendants 2 & 3 have also initiated necessary action against the plaintiff's mutt in the Revenue Court as regards the determination of the rent in respect of the demised lands. Be that as it may, it is admitted that the defendants 2 & 3 are the cultivating tenants of the property in question under the plaintiff's mutt and therefore, entitled to the benefits of the Cultivating Tenant Protection Act, 1955. 11. It is further found that the first defendant is the son of the second defendant. It is further found that it is not in dispute that the second defendant is blessed with three sons including the first defendant. It is further found that all the sons of the second defendant are married and also found that the second defendant along with his wife and along with his sons, their wives and grandchildren living together in the suit property. 12. It is further found that all the sons of the second defendant are married and also found that the second defendant along with his wife and along with his sons, their wives and grandchildren living together in the suit property. 12. Now, according to the plaintiff, inasmuch as the defendants 1 & 2 had raised illegal house structure on the suit property measuring to an extent of 0.03 cents without the permission of the plaintiff's mutt and as the first defendant has no direct tenancy arrangement under the plaintiff's mutt in respect of the above said three cents, according to the plaintiff, the illegal structure put up by the defendants 1 & 2 on the suit property should be removed and vacant possession of the same should be handed over to the plaintiff. However, the above case of the plaintiff is resisted by the defendants 1 & 2 mainly by contending that when a larger extent of land had been demised to the defendants 2 & 3, the brothers, from the days of their father, who, they had been residing therein with their family members and accordingly, the second defendant blessed with three sons also continue to remain in the property demised to him along with his sons and their family members and accordingly, put up separate house structures in the portion earmarked for the same in the land demised for the convenient enjoyment of the demised property and in such view of the matter, the case of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 & 2 had illegally put up thatched structure on the three cents of land is not tenable and hence, the suit is liable to be rejected. 13. As rightly found by the first appellate Court, it is seen that the suit land forms part of the larger extent of the land leased out to the defendants 2 & 3 by the plaintiff's mutt. It is also not in dispute and admitted by the plaintiff that the defendants 2 & 3 had been granted permission to put up house structure on the demised land inclusive of the suit property so as to enable them to enjoy the land demised conveniently. Accordingly, it is found that in the portion earmarked for the purpose of residence, the defendants 2 & 3 had put up thatched structure and been residing therein with their respective family members. Accordingly, it is found that in the portion earmarked for the purpose of residence, the defendants 2 & 3 had put up thatched structure and been residing therein with their respective family members. As above seen, the plaintiff itself has admitted that the lease arrangement with the parties had been carried on from the days of the father of the defendants 2 & 3 and therefore, it is found that right from the days of their father, the defendants 2 & 3 had been residing in the suit property by putting up house structure and living with their family members and accordingly, it is found that the second defendant had put up separate house structures in the ear-marked portion of the demised land for the convenient enjoyment of his sons and their family members. It is not in dispute that the second defendant is blessed with three sons, who are all married and living with their sons and their grandchildren as one unit. It is not in dispute that the second defendant is blessed with three sons, who are all married and living with their sons and their grandchildren as one unit. When it is not in dispute that the second defendant is the cultivating tenant of the plaintiff's mutt in respect of the suit property and when as per the definition of the cultivating tenant as provided under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, also includes the heir of such person, if the heir contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land, it is found that as rightly determined by the first appellate Court, when admittedly the first defendant is the son of the second defendant and when admittedly the suit land had been leased out to the second defendant for the purpose of putting up house structure for the convenient enjoyment of the whole of the lands demised to him as a cultivating tenant and when it is not in dispute that the second defendant is residing along with his sons plus their families plus grandchildren, as rightly held by the first appellate Court when it is the admitted case of the plaintiff's mutt itself that the structure put up had been raised only in the portion earmarked for the said purpose and when the legal heirs of the cultivating tenant are also entitled to reap and enjoy the benefits of the cultivating tenant and merely because the first defendant is an adult member, it cannot be held that he is completely disassociated from the family of the second defendant and on the other hand, when it is found that as per the case of the defendants, the second defendant and his sons with their family are living together under the same roof, no doubt, for the convenient enjoyment of their family members, they had raised separate house structures in the portion ear-marked for the same, the case of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 & 2 had put up the illegal structure in the suit property as such cannot be countenanced in any manner. 14. 14. It is contended by the plaintiff's counsel that the defendants 1 & 2 had not obtained the permission of the plaintiff's mutt before putting up house structure in the suit property and on the other hand, had illegally put up the structure on the same. However, when inclusive of the suit property, the larger extent of land had been admittedly leased out to the second defendant as well as the third defendant and when the second defendant is all along residing with his family members right from the date of lease arrangement, the case of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 & 2 had illegally put up the house structure in the suit property as such cannot be accepted. Equally, when it is found that the plaintiff's case itself is that it had granted permission to the defendants 2 & 3 to raise house structure on the land demised to them for the convenient enjoyment of the lands in question, no exception cold be taken in the conduct of the defendants 1 & 2 in raising separate house structures on the portion earmarked for the said purpose for the convenient enjoyment of the family members. The trial Court seems to have accepted the plaintiff's case on the premise that the first defendant has no direct cultivation arrangement with the plaintiff and the raising of the house structure by him would destroy the inherent cultivable nature of the suit property, accordingly, decreed the suit, as if the first defendant is a stranger to the family of the second defendant. On the other hand, as rightly found by the first appellate Court, the first defendant forms very much a member of the second defendant's family, he being one of the sons of the second defendant and when it is not shown that the first defendant had become disassociated from the family of the second defendant in any manner, it is found that the house structure put up by the defendants 1 & 2 on the suit property also falls within the lease arrangement entered into between the parties. In such view of the matter, the findings of the trial Court that if the parties are allowed to raise house structure on the demised land, the cultivatable lands would be rendered to house sites and thereby the plaintiff's mutt would be put to loss as such cannot be accepted, particularly, when it is noted that the alleged structure has been put up by the defendants 1 & 2 only on the portions ear-marked for the residential purpose. 15. In the light of the above discussions, as rightly determined by the first appellate Court, even though there is no direct relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff and the first defendant, when admittedly, the first defendant is the son of the second defendant and when admittedly, the second defendant is the cultivating tenant in respect of the land demised and when the first defendant being the legal heir of the second defendant also falls within the definition of the cultivating tenant and residing together with the second defendant along with his family members, it is seen that the first defendant cannot in any manner be regarded as a trespasser to the suit property and on the other hand, he could only to be regarded and treated as the cultivating tenant of the suit property under the plaintiff's mutt as per the definition of the Cultivating Tenant given under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant Protection Act, 1955 and therefore, even in the absence of necessary permission from the plaintiff' mutt, it is found that the house structure put up by the defendants 1 & 2 on the portion earmarked for the suit purpose, would not in any manner amount to illegal trespass of the suit property by the defendants and hence it cannot be also construed that the defendants 1 & 2 had put up the structure unlawfully, which would entail the removal of the same as claimed by the plaintiff. In such view of the matter, it is seen that the plaintiff's case has to fail as determined by the first appellate Court and accordingly, the substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants 1 & 2. In conclusion, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.