LexGOVINDAPPA GOUNDER @ GOVINDASAMY (DEAD) versus K. VIJAYAKUMAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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, M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.