NAVANEETHAMMAL Vs. ARJUNACHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The palintiff who filed a suit on 13-6-1962 for declaration of her title to the suit property and for recovery of possession is the appellant herein. The suit property is an extent of 1.13 acre out of 3.39 acres in Survey No. 330/2 in Ulli Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, North Arcot District, Tamil Nadu. It was purchased by the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 21-3-1957 from one Mohd. Ghouse. The respondent herein who was the defendant in the suit admittedly was let in to possession of the suit property along with the balance of above mentioned Survey No. 330/2 as a tenant under a registered lease deed dated 1-4-1935. The vendor of the plaintiff after the sale issued a notice to the defendant on 16-4-1957 intimating the fact of sale to the plaintiff. The defendant in his reply dated 27-4-1957 denied his status as lessee and his liability to pay rent . He set up title in himself to the suit property. The plaintiff on his part issued a notice on 10-5-1957 intimating the defendant about her purchase and calling upon him to pay a rent in future as a lessee. As defendant set up title in himself, the plaintiff was obliged to file the suit as stated above.

(2.) The suit was resisted on the ground that after the expiry of the registered lease, he surrendered possession of the suit property to the then landlord and thereafter, since it was under nobody's occupation, he entered possession in his own right and not as a lessee and he has not even paid rent to anybody after the expiration of lease. Further it was alleged that he has prescribed title by adverse possession was barred by limitation. The Trial Court framed as many as six issues and after examining three witnesses on the side of the defendant and after persuing 13 documents filed on the side of the defendant , it found that the plea of surrender was not established and defendant did not prescribe title by adverse possession. Accepting the case of the plaintiff, the trial Court decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to the suit property and directed the defendant to surrender possession without any let or hindrance.

(3.) The defendant aggrieved by the decree against him preferred an appeal to the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur. Unfortunately, on account of certain lapses, the High Court was compelled to remand the matter to the Appellate Court on three occasions. Finally the First appellate Court by its detailed judgment on 9-9-1976 confirmed the decree of the trial Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant.