C VELLAISAMY Vs. C CHINNAKANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.71 of 1995 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Devakottai has preferred the above Second Appeal against the concurrent findings rendered both by the trial court and the first appellate court, the court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff, seeking the relief of declaration and delivery of possession of the suit property which is a residential building in D.No.2/87 in Old S.No.89/12 of Ariyakudi Village, Karaikudi Taluk in Sivagangai District.

(2.) THE plaint averments, in short, are that the plaintiff having constructed the house in a village natham poramboke land and obtaining patta No.702 for it, in his name, has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for the last 30 years; that on the North of the suit property, there is a house site assigned by the Government in which he has constructed a house falling under S.No.89/10; that he had obtained co-operative loan pledging the said property; that the defendant has no semblance of right in the suit property; that he has no ancestral properties; that the defendant after his marriage had been to Sankarapuram and permanently stayed there along with his father-in-law and came back home only a couple of years back; that at his request the plaintiff permitted him to stay in the suit house, built in S.No.89/12; that in January, 1993 when the plaintiff withdrew the permission asking the defendant to vacate, on the defendants refusal a notice had been issued on 29.7.1993, for which the defendant issued a reply with averments that his junior paternal uncle Vellaisamy who was assigned with the land in S.No.89/12 permitted him to construct the suit house and thereafter he has taken up his residence therein for the last ten years which are false; that the defendant has no property at the said locality at all; that it is the plaintiff who is paying the tax having obtained the UDR patta in his favour and on such averments the plaintiff would pray for the reliefs, extracted supra.

(3.) AGGRIEVED, the plaintiff had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.9 of 1997, on the file of Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai and the appellate court having framed two points namely; (1) Whether the appellant is entitled to the relief of declaration and delivery of possession as prayed for in the suit and (2) What relief, if any, is the appellant entitled to. and having its own discussion in the light of the pleadings and other materials placed on record would concurrently arrive at the conclusion to dismiss the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, thereby confirming the judgment and decree as passed by the trial court.