Mere Entry in Tenancy Register Does Not Create a Cultivating Tenant: Madras High Court Refuses Injunction

In a significant ruling reiterating the limits of statutory tenancy claims, the Madras High Court on 10/02/2026 held that “a person may not be a cultivating tenant merely by reason, his name being found in the record of tenancy rights Register.”

Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi upheld concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court refusing permanent injunction to the plaintiffs who claimed cultivating tenancy under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Records of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969.

“Entry in Tenancy Rights Register Does Not Confer Any Right By Itself” – Scope of Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC Reaffirmed

The central issue was whether mere inclusion of the plaintiff’s name in the Tenancy Rights Register under Sections 3(8) and 39 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Records of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969, was sufficient to establish lawful possession so as to entitle him to permanent injunction.

The Court answered in the negative and dismissed the Second Appeal.

The plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties originally belonged to Seshana Chettiar Trust and that the deceased plaintiff was a registered cultivating tenant even prior to 1972. It was contended that tenancy had been recorded by the Tahsildar under Section 39 of the 1969 Act and that the plaintiff was in continuous possession and enjoyment.

The defendants resisted the suit asserting title through partition and subsequent registered sale deeds. They produced documentary evidence including sale deeds, adangals and kist receipts (Ex.B1 to B18) to establish possession and ownership.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit for permanent injunction in O.S. No.370 of 2000. The First Appellate Court confirmed the dismissal in A.S. No.12 of 2012. The legal heirs of the plaintiff preferred the present Second Appeal.

“Details of Lease and Rent Not Proved” – Failure to Establish Cultivating Tenancy

The High Court examined whether the plaintiff had discharged the burden of proving cultivating tenancy.

The Court categorically held:

“It is well settled that, a person may not be a cultivating tenant merely by reason, his name being found in the record of tenancy rights Register.”

The Court found that the plaintiff had not stated the essential particulars of tenancy, including the period of lease and the amount of rent paid. No evidence was produced to show to whom rent was paid or how tenancy commenced.

The Court observed:

“The entry in the record or Tenancy Right Register does not confer by itself any right on a person as a cultivating tenant unless he satisfies the other requirements.”

“Order of Tenancy Registration Alone Is Insufficient to Prove Possession”

The appellants relied heavily on Ex.A1, the order of tenancy registration passed by the Tahsildar.

However, the Court noted that:

“It is not sufficient to prove the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties with the help of order of tenancy registration record marked as Ex.A1.”

Significantly, no adangal extracts or revenue records were produced to substantiate actual cultivation or possession.

Further, the Court pointed out discrepancies in Ex.A1, observing that “in Ex.A1, the statement by the plaintiff and the owner of the properties are not one and the same.”

Thus, the statutory entry was not treated as conclusive proof of tenancy or possession.

Defendants Established Title and Possession

In contrast, the defendants produced documentary evidence including registered sale deeds, adangals and kist receipts (Ex.B1 to B18), which demonstrated title and possession.

The Court upheld the concurrent findings that the defendants had successfully established lawful possession, whereas the plaintiff failed to prove the foundational requirement for injunction.

“Plaintiff Seeking Injunction Must Prove Lawful Possession on Date of Suit”

The Court reiterated the settled principle that in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish lawful possession as on the date of suit.

Mere reliance on tenancy registration without supporting revenue records or proof of continuous cultivation was held insufficient.

The High Court found no perversity or substantial question of law arising from the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below, thereby limiting interference under Section 100 CPC.

The Madras High Court’s ruling reinforces that statutory tenancy claims cannot rest solely on entries in the Tenancy Rights Register. A cultivating tenant must prove the essential elements of tenancy, including lease particulars and actual possession.

Where concurrent findings establish absence of possession and failure to substantiate tenancy, the High Court will not interfere in Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Accordingly, the Second Appeal was dismissed and the decree of the courts below was affirmed.

Date of Decision: 10/02/2026