PONNI Vs. ANTHONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second appeal is by the second defendant. Deceased first defendant was her husband and fourth defendant their daughter. Third defendant is the husband of fourth defendant and defendants 5 and 6 are their children. Defendants 2 to 6 were impleaded only as persons residing in the building in the suit property alongwith the first defendant.

(2.) Suit property is 26 cents and a building, which originally belonged to first defendant on lease. In 1951, he assigned it to one Vareed under Ext.A5, but continued to reside in the building on oral rent arrangement and then on the basis of Ext. A10 rent deed executed in 1954. In 1960, plaintiff got Ext.Al assignment of the rights of Vareed. First defendant, thereafter, attorned to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff filed an R.C.O.P. for eviction, first defendant denied his title and the rent arrangement itself. Denial of title was found bona fide and hence by Ext. B9 order, plaintiff was directed to seek remedy before the civil court. That is how this suit was filed for recovery of the land and building on the strength of title.

(3.) The stand taken by the defendants was that first defendant never parted with his rights in favour of Vareed and he continued to be the owner in possession of the land and building. Rent arrangement was also denied. Ext.A5 was contended to be the result of fraud and what was intended to be executed was a simple mortgage to secure a loan which was thereafter discharged. In short, the contention was that plaintiff has no right to get any relief.