S RAMALINGAM Vs. ANDAL AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 21.1.2008, made in A.S.No.31 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Panruti, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 28.7.2006, made in O.S.No.31 of 1997, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti.

(2.) THE plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.31 of 1997, are the appellants in the present second appeal. THE defendants in the said suit are the respondents herein.

(3.) IT had also been stated that the promissory note, dated 12.9.1987, had become time barred and unenforceable. Hence, the first defendant is not entitled to continue in possession of the suit property and therefore, her possession had become unlawful. In such circumstances, plaintiffs 2 to 4 had issued a notice to the first defendant, on 17.2.1996, asking her to surrender possession of the suit property to the said plaintiffs. The first defendant had issued a reply, on 17.4.1996, making a false contention that the suit property had been leased out to her father-in-law, Lakshumana Padayachi, by the original owner, Thangavel Chettiar, on an annual lease of Rs.100/-. After the death of Lakshumana Padayachi, her husband Kanagaraju continued to be a lessee.