GOVINDAPPA GOUNDER @ GOVINDASAMY (DEAD)versusK. VIJAYAKUMAR AND ORS.

         [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1229 : 2025 INSC 1134

   Govindappa Gounder @ Govindasamy (Dead)
                       v.
            K. Vijayakumar and Ors.
           (Civil Appeal No(s). 7464-7466 of 2011)
                       10 September 2025
       [J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Whether there is any cogent material or evidence to indicate that
the appellants had indulged in cutting of trees or its branches
or digging up the land and thereby causing substantial damage
so as to bring the case within the ambit of s.3(2)(b), Tamil Nadu
Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.

                            Headnotes†
Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 –
s.3(2)(b) – Suit filed by the respondents claiming to be the
owners of the subject land seeking permanent injunction
against the appellants restraining them from cutting trees or
from causing any damage or waste to the subject property –
Allowed – Decree set aside by First Appeallate Court – Second
Appeal filed by the respondents – Respondents also filed
proceedings before Revenue Court seeking eviction of the
appellants on the ground that they caused damage to the suit
land by felling trees etc. – Revenue Court directed eviction of
the appellants from the suit land – Appellants filed Revision
before High Court – Order of Revenue Court was affirmed in
revision; second appeal also allowed – Challenge to:
Held: There is nothing to indicate that the appellants were negligent
in any manner or had done any act by which they could be said to
have caused damage to the suit land or could be said to have done
something, which could be said to be injurious to the land or any
crop thereon – Appellants had been cultivating the suit land since
1955-1960 – They would be more concerned or interested to protect
the land, more particularly their crops they cultivate – Even assuming
that there was something to indicate that the trees were pruned,
that by itself would not bring the case within the ambit of s.3(2)(b) –
Revenue Court mechanically relied upon the Commissioner’s report
and passed the order of eviction – High Court also in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction affirmed the order in a very slipshod manner
1230                                                           [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    passed by the Revenue Court – High Court erred in allowing the
    Second Appeal filed by the respondents and thereby interfering with
    the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court in favour of
    the appellants – It is only when there is cogent, credible and reliable
    evidence on record of gross violation of the provisions of s.3(2)(b)
    that the Revenue Court may be justified in ordering eviction of the
    tenant under the 1955 Act – Impugned order passed by the High
    Court in the revision petition, set aside – Original order of Revenue
    Court also set aside. [Paras 20-22, 25]
    Interpretation of Statutes – Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants
    Protection Act, 1955, a beneficial statute – Object, stated –
    Interpretation of a beneficial statute – Beneficent construction –
    The provisions should be interpreted in such a manner that
    the cultivating tenants are ultimately protected and are not
    thrown out at the instance of the landlords who are always
    interested to see that the tenants leave. [Paras 22-24]

                              Case Law Cited
    G. Ponniah Thevar v. Nalleyam Perumal Pillai & Ors. [1977] 2
    SCR 446 : (1977) 1 SCC 500 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
    Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955; Code of Civil
    Procedure, 1908.

                             List of Keywords
    Section 3(2)(b), Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act,
    1955; Cultivating tenants; Landlords not to evict cultivating tenants;
    Cutting of trees or its branches; Digging up the land; Damage to
    the land by felling trees; Injurious to the land or crop thereon;
    Revenue Court; Beneficial statute; Beneficent construction.

                            Case Arising From
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 7464-7466
    of 2011
    From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2009 of the High Court
    of Judicature at Madras in SA No. 1201 of 2004, CRP No. 4052
    of 2008, and MP No. 1 of 2009.
    With
    Civil Appeal No(s). 7467-7469 of 2011
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                       1231

            Govindappa Gounder @ Govindasamy (Dead) v.
                      K. Vijayakumar and Ors.

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     N. Rajaraman, T. V. George, Pankaj Bist, Vijay Rawat, Karan
     Chauhan.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     P. V. Yogeswaran, Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Y. Lokesh, V. Kandha
     Prabhu, Ms. Maitri Goal, Ms. Dhatri Singh, Guneswaran Pv,
     N. Rajaraman, I.V Kashyap, Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Ms. Renu,
     Swagata Gupta, Ms. Shivani Verma, Ms. Pragya Jaishwal,
     Ms. Chandana Debnath, Nitin Kumar Nayak, Piyush, Anurag Ojha,
     Ms. Samishti Solomon, Siddharth Sarup.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

1.   Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are same and
     the challenge is also to the self same judgment and order passed
     by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and
     are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2.   For the sake of convenience, we treat the Civil Appeal Nos. 7464-
     7466/2011, which are notified today at Serial No.103 of the cause
     list as the lead matter.
3.   These appeals arise from the common judgment and order passed
     by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 18.11.2009, by
     which the Second Appeal filed by the respondents herein (original
     plaintiffs) came to be allowed thereby set asiding the judgment and
     decree dated 18.12.2002 passed by the First Appellate Court in
     Appeal Suit No. 15/2001 arising from the judgment and decree dated
     24.11.2000 passed in Original Suit No. 491/1994 by the Court of the
     II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.
4.   This litigation has a long drawn history. The appellants before us are
     the original defendants and the respondents are the original plaintiffs.
5.   During the pendency of the present appeals, the appellant Govindappa
     Gounder @ Govindasamy passed away. In such circumstances, we
     have permitted his legal heirs to be brought on record. Some of the
     respondents have also died.
1232                                                        [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


6.   It is the case of the appellants herein that Govindappa Gounder @
     Govindasamy was lawfully cultivating the suit land bearing Survey Nos.
     169-170 respectively, situated in Village Pichanoor, Taluk Coimbatore
     South, Tamil Nadu, admeasuring 6 Acres & 98 Cents. Since the
     respondents herein claiming to be the lawful owners of the suit property
     were trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the appellants
     herein, Original Suit No. 1363/1993 came to be instituted praying for
     permanent injunction restraining the land owners from interfering with
     his possession and cultivation of the subject land. The Original Suit
     No. 1363/1993 was allowed. The same came to be decreed. The Trial
     Court ordered that the land owners shall not disturb or interfere with
     the lawful possession of the tenant except in accordance with law.
     We are informed that against the said judgment and decree passed
     by the Trial Court in the Original Suit No. 1363/1993, appeal was also
     filed and the said appeal also came to be dismissed.
7.   We now proceed to look into one another proceedings. It appears
     from the materials on record that the respondents herein claiming to
     be the lawful owners of the subject land instituted the Original Suit
     No. 491/1994 in the Court of District Munsif, Coimbatore seeking
     permanent injunction against the appellants herein restraining them
     from cutting trees or from causing any damage or waste to the
     subject property. The Plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 491/1994 also
     prayed for awarding adequate damages for the alleged loss caused
     by cutting trees etc. It appears that the Original Suit Nos. 1363/1993
     and 491/1994 respectively were ordered to be consolidated, since
     the parties were the same and by and large the issues were also
     the same. Common evidence was recorded. The Original Suit No.
     491/1994 came to be allowed. The relief prayed for in the said
     suit was granted. The appellants herein being dissatisfied with the
     judgment and decree passed in the Original Suit No. 491/1994,
     preferred a First Appeal in the District Court. The First Appeal came
     to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court
     was ordered to be set aside.
8.   In such circumstances referred to above, the respondents herein i.e.
     the original plaintiffs, went before the High Court in Second Appeal.
     The Second Appeal came to be allowed. The High Court set aside
     the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and
     restored the original decree passed by the Trial Court.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                           1233

            Govindappa Gounder @ Govindasamy (Dead) v.
                      K. Vijayakumar and Ors.

9.   In such circumstances referred to above, the appellants –(legal
     heirs), are here before us with the present appeals.
10. We heard Mr. T.V. George, the learned counsel appearing for the
    appellants, Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, the learned counsel appearing for
    the respondent no.1 and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, the learned
    counsel appearing for the respondent no.4.
11. It appears that the judgment and decree that came to be passed
    in the Original Suit No. 491/1994 lead the respondents herein in
    preferring the Original Petition No. 16/2001 before the Assistant
    Commissioner, Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli. The said proceedings
    came to be instituted by the respondents under the provisions of
    the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (for short,
    “the Act 1955”) for eviction of the appellants on the ground that they
    caused damage to the suit land by felling trees etc. It appears that the
    Revenue Court relied upon the report of the Commissioner appointed
    by the Civil Court in the suit proceedings and proceeded to pass an
    order dated 21.11.2008 allowing the Original Petition and directing
    eviction of the appellants from the suit land. While disposing of the
    Original Petition, the Revenue Court observed as under:
           “On behalf of the petitioner Ex.P.2 Court commissioner’s
           Report was marked. The said report was marked in O.S.
           491 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
           In the suit was stated that the respondent has cut the
           trees and its branches also caused damages to the
           lands by digging pits therefore they sought for damages
           of Rs.10,000/- and also sought for permanent injunction
           restraining the respondent from cutting the trees and
           committing acts of waste, the Trial Court also decreed the
           suit and the said decree is marked as Ex.P.3.
           Regarding this case it is accepted by both sides, that the
           petitioner was land lord and respondent was tenant, Ex.P.2
           Court Commissioner, in his Report stated that trees and
           branches were cut down and pits also dug up in the lands.
           In Ex.P.3 District Munsif Courts order also it is found that
           the trees and branches were cut off and pits were dug up.
           Hence, the respondent has dug up the pits and cut
           down the trees and branches is proved. The respondent
1234                                                     [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          without cultivating the lands. Since cut down the trees
          and branches has caused damages to the land is proved.
          The Respondents were given the property for cultivation
          only. Since he has committed damages without cultivating
          lands he cost the tenancy rights and therefore losing the
          right as tenant.
          Hence the respondent is directed to be evicted from
          the lands and to hand over the possession. To facilitate
          Executive Revenue Inspector to execute the order. The
          petitioner is to approach the Executive Revenue Inspector
          by Registered Post addressed to respondent and Village
          Administrative Officer.”
12. The order passed by the Revenue Court lead the appellants in filing
    of the Civil Revision Petition No. 4052/2008 in the High Court. When
    the Second Appeal was taken up for hearing by the High Court, the
    revision was also heard together and a common order came to be
    passed.
13. At this stage, we must talk about the connected appeals, which
    are notified at Serial No. 103.1 being the Civil Appeal Nos.7467-
    7469/2011. These appeals have been filed by one another branch
    of the family of the respondent no.1 claiming to be the lawful heirs
    and owners of the suit property. They also seek to challenge the very
    same judgment and order passed by the High Court. However, we
    need not look into these appeals as they have already instituted the
    Original Suit No. 302/2009 in the Civil Court at Coimbatore, wherein
    the respondents herein are the original defendants. The Original Suit
    no. 302/2009 shall be decided by the trial Court on its own merits.
14. In the present litigation, we are only concerned with the order of
    eviction that came to be passed by the Revenue Court on the
    strength of the decree that the Civil Court passed in the Original
    Suit No. 491/1994. It appears that the Revenue Court relying on
    Ext. P.2 i.e. the Court Commissioner’s report, recorded a finding
    that the appellants herein are responsible for cutting of trees etc.,
    thereby causing damage to the suit land. It was also alleged that the
    appellants digged pits and constructed huts in the suit land. This,
    according to the Revenue Court, was in violation of the provisions
    of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act 1955.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                           1235

            Govindappa Gounder @ Govindasamy (Dead) v.
                      K. Vijayakumar and Ors.

15. In the aforesaid context, we must look into the provisions of law.
    The Act 1955 came to be enacted for the purpose of protection from
    eviction of the cultivating tenants in certain areas in the State of
    Tamil Nadu. Section 3 provides in what circumstances the landlords
    shall not evict the cultivating tenants. Section 3(2)(b) reads thus:””
           “3. Landlords not to evict cultivating tenants:-
           (2)subject to the next succeeding sub-section(1) shall not
           apply to a cultivating tenant-
           (b) Who has done any act or has been guilty of any
           negligence which is destructive of, or injurious to, the land
           or any crop thereon or has altogether ceased to cultivate
           the land;”
16. A plain reading of Section 3 would indicate that no cultivating tenant
    can be evicted from its holdings or any part thereof at the instance
    of his landlord whether in execution of a decree or order of a Court
    or otherwise, but the same is subject to sub-Section (b). Sub-Section
    (b) provides that whoever has done any act or has been guilty of
    any negligence, which could be termed as destructive of, or injurious
    to, the land or any crop thereon, then, such a tenant is liable to be
    evicted and he would not stand protected under the provisions of
    the Act 1955. Section 3(2)(b) also provides that even if the tenant
    has stopped cultivating the land, he would lose the protection and
    would be liable to eviction.
17. The short point for our consideration is whether there is any cogent
    material or evidence to indicate that the appellants had indulged in
    cutting of trees or its branches or digging up the land and thereby
    causing substantial damage so as to bring the case within the ambit
    of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act 1955.
18. We have already reproduced the findings recorded by the Revenue
    Court. We shall now look into the findings recorded by the High
    Court in this regard. Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 respectively of the
    impugned judgment of the High Court reads thus:
           “17. Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection
           Act, 1955 prohibits the eviction of cultivating tenants by
           the landlords and one of the exceptions in Section 3(2)
           (b) goes thus:
1236                                                        [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


               “(b) who has done any act or has been guilty
               of any negligence which is destructive of, or
               injurious to, the land or any crop thereon or has
               altogether ceased to cultivate the land.”
          18. The civil court has rendered a finding to the effect
          that by means of the commissioner’s report it has been
          shown that the nature of the property has been altered
          by cutting branches of several trees digging pits, put up
          new huts, constructing a water tank by embedding pipes
          in the suit land. The prescribed authority under the Act
          viz., the Revenue Court has exercised its jurisdiction in
          an appropriate manner in passing eviction order on the
          ground of causing destructive and injurious activities to the
          leasehold land. As far as the order passed by the revenue
          Court challenged before this Court is concerned, the fact
          placed by the appellants before the said court has been
          thoroughly and appropriately appreciated and eviction
          order has been passed.
          19. It is urged on the side of the first respondent that
          there was no landlord and tenant relationship between
          the appellants and the first respondent. The court has to
          bear in mind that only on behalf of Kuppusamy Gounder
          and Palani Gounder, who were then minors, Palaniappa
          Gounder leased the properties to Chinnaiah and after he
          left the properties with them, they took responsibility of the
          affairs of the suit property the fact that they are owners of
          the property having been known by the tenants and the
          undertaking on the part of the first respondent to the effect
          that he is ready and willing to attorn the tenancy in favour
          of valid title holder would go a long way to show that there
          is landlord tenant relationship existing between the parties.”
19. We take notice of the fact that against the order passed by the
    Revenue Court referred to above, a revision lies directly in the High
    Court as provided under Section 6(B) of the Act 1955, which reads
    thus:
          “6-B. Revision by High Court - The Revenue Divisional
          Officer shall be deemed to be a Court subordinate to the
          High Court for the purposes of Section 115 of the Code
          of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) and his
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                        1237

            Govindappa Gounder @ Govindasamy (Dead) v.
                      K. Vijayakumar and Ors.

           orders shall be liable to revision by the High Court under
           the provisions of the Section.”
20. We have reached the conclusion having regard to the materials
    on record that there is nothing to indicate that the appellants were
    negligent in any manner or had done any act by which they could
    be said to have caused damage to the suit land or could be said
    to have done something, which could be said to be injurious to the
    land or any crop thereon. We should not overlook the fact that the
    appellants had been cultivating the suit land since 1955-1960. They
    would be more concerned or interested to protect the land, more
    particularly their crops they cultivate. Assuming for a moment that
    there is something to indicate that the trees were pruned by itself
    would not bring the case within the ambit of Section 3(2)(b) of the
    Act 1955. It appears that the Revenue Court mechanically relied
    upon the Commissioner’s report and passed the order of eviction.
    The High Court also in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under
    Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, affirmed the order
    in a very slipshod manner passed by the Revenue Court.
21. In such circumstances referred to above, we are of the view that the
    High Court committed an error in allowing the Second Appeal filed
    by the respondents and thereby interfering with the findings of fact
    recorded by the First Appellate Court in favour of the appellants herein.
22. The Act 1955 was enacted solely to protect the interest of the
    cultivating tenants. In other words, the object in enacting the said
    Act was to protect the cultivating tenants from forcible dispossession
    by the landlords. In such circumstances, the provisions of the Act
    should also be interpreted accordingly. In other words, the provisions
    should be interpreted in such a manner that the tenants are ultimately
    protected and are not thrown out at the instance of the landlords
    who are always interested to see that the tenants leave. It is only
    when there is cogent, credible and reliable evidence on record of
    gross violation of the provisions of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act 1955
    that the Revenue Court may be justified in ordering eviction of the
    tenant under the Act 1955.
23. The enactments like the Act 1955 are really meant for the purposes
    proclaimed by them. The obvious effect of such statutory provisions
    cannot be taken away or whittled down by forensic sophistry. Courts
1238                                                     [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     should not allow themselves to become tools for defeating clearly
     expressed statutory intentions. [See: G. Ponniah Thevar v/s Nalleyam
     Perumal Pillai & Ors. reported in (1977)1 SCC 500]
24. Beneficent construction involves giving the widest meaning possible to
    the statutes. When there are two or more possible ways of interpreting
    a section or a word, the meaning which gives relief and protects the
    benefits which are purported to be given by the legislation, should
    be chosen. A beneficial statute has to be construed in its correct
    perspective so as to fructify the legislative intent. The Act, 1955
    seeks to protect cultivating tenants from unjust evictions and it is a
    cardinal principle of law that in case of doubt, such Acts should be
    interpreted to lean in favour of tenants.
25. In the result, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The
    impugned order passed by the High Court in the Civil Revision Petition
    No. 4052/2008 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the original order
    of Revenue Court also stands set aside.
26. We direct that the respondents shall not interfere with the possession
    of the appellants, save and except in accordance with law.
27. In view of the disposal of Civil Appeal Nos. 7464-7466/2011, the
    connected Civil Appeal Nos. 7467-7469/2011 also stand disposed of.
28. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey