respondent has proved the tenancy only in respect of 2.50 acres by producing Exs.A1 and A2, the Courts below were not right in granting a decree in respect of entirety of the property namely, 3.30 acres. According to him, except the evidence of P.W.1, there is nothing on record to establish the tenancy pleaded by him with reference to the 80 cents or 2/6th share of defendants 2 and 3 in the property. Taking me through the plaint, Mr.Mukunth would submit while it is the specific case of the plaintiff that 2.50 acres was leased out to him on 25.01.1976 under Ex.A1. The remaining 2/6 of share of the defendants 2 and 3 was leased to him in 1990. Mr.Mukunth would contend that there is no evidence to prove the lease pleaded in the year 1990. He would also draw my attention to the adangal extracts filed by the defendants as Exs.B15 to B17 to show that the defendants have been in possession of the property. He would also contend that there is no evidence to prove the possession of the plaintiff except Kist Receipts marked as Exs.A3 to A11. He would also point out that the plaintiff as P.W.1 has admitted that he has other lands in the same survey number and also share in the well. Relying upon the above admission, Mr.Mukunth would contend that except Kist Receipts as well as the receipt for payment of additional security deposit to the Tamilnadu Electricity Board filed as Ex.A12 and the receipt for payment of consumption charges filed as Ex.A13 relating to the land owned by the plaintiff in the same survey number, there is no other evidence to prove the plaintiff's possession. Contending that it is Adangal which would establish possession and when the defendants have produced Adangal extracts to show their continuous possession of the suit property, the Courts below were not right in granting an injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
