T.SUDALAIMUTHU Vs. V.RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.112 of 2010, a suit laid for declaration of title and for recovery of possession, has approached this Court after suffering successive decrees both before the trial Court and the first appellate court. The parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

(2.) The suit property is described as the site, ground floor and first floor of a certain commercial building. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was purchased by the appellant/defendant herein under Ext.A.2, sale deed dated 12.04.1984, and that on 19.09.2006, the defendant sold it to the plaintiff under Ext.A.3 sale deed. The plaintiff alleged that since the defendant was running his business in the suit property, he requested six months time to vacate from the suit property and it was conceded to by the plaintiff. However, contrary to the promise made, the defendant refused to vacate. The defendant was only a permissive occupant of the suit property, and since a notice directing him to vacate the suit property was not heeded to, the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession was laid.

(3.) In the written statement, it was contended that the Ext.A.3 sale deed was not intended to convey any title to the plaintiff, that the defendant had borrowed from the plaintiff, and Ext.A-3 was intended to secure the said debt. This according to the defendant would be borne by the fact that the while Ext.A-3 deals with the site, ground floor and the first floor, the property has a second floor as well. Besides, the property would fetch substantial price in the market where as Ext.A-3 shows only a fraction of the market value of the property.