14.2. The first Appellate Court also upheld the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the First Appeal. Further, the Courts below found that, none of the documents marked by the plaintiff would show that the lease was effective and the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the property. Moreover, the plaintiff has stated that he is a cultivating tenant, however, in the Adangal Extract marked before the trial Court, he himself admitted that he has not cultivated any crop in the suit property. Further, the trial Court found that the plaintiff's daughter married the second defendant's son and there is a collusion between the plaintiff and the second defendant. That apart, there is also a suit pending between the co-owners in O.S.No.231 of 1997 as evident through Ex.A10. Further, Ex.B1, certified copy of suit register extract related to O.S.No.867 of 1996 of District Munsif Court, Pollachi clearly establishes such collusion. Further, the Revenue Records, Exs.A4, A6 and A7 marked by the appellant/plaintiff to prove his possession were of the year 2000 and in those documents, the property in Survey No.60/8 is classified as a waste land and therefore, no cultivation can be done. Therefore, plucking of the coconut from the coconut trees standing in the suit property by the appellant/plaintiff is obviously a false statement.
