K R PANNERSELVAM Vs. VASANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, dated 25.9.2006, made in A.S.No.13 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 15.9.2005, made in O.S.No.660 of 1998, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai.

(2.) THE defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.660 of 1998, is the appellant in the present second appeal. THE plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent herein. THE plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S.No.660 of 1998, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai, praying for a judgment and decree, for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant and for damages for its use and occupation by the defendant.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, it had been stated that the suit property had been purchased from the funds contributed by the defendant. The defendant was employed as a line man and thereafter, as an INspector in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Since, he was not in a position to purchase any property in his name, he had provided funds to the plaintiff-s husband to purchase the property. From 1984 to 1987, the suit property was kept vacant. As the building in the suit property was in a dilapidated condition, the defendant had repaired the same, at regular intervals, to keep it in a good condition. He had also stated that all the properties purchased in a similar manner were treated as joint family properties. There are no trees in the suit property yielding income, as claimed by the plaintiff. Further, the bamboo clusters had also been raised only by the defendant. Therefore, the claims made by the plaintiff, for exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property, is not sustainable in the eye of law.