ALAGARSWAMI KONE Vs. T J ANDHONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this second appeal claims compensation, for the value of the superstructure erected by him on a vacant site in which he was let into possession under certain terms and conditions, invoking the doctrine of equitable estoppel as enunciated in Ramsden v. Dyson, (1865-66) 1 HL 129,

(2.) C. A. Subramania lyer obtained an assignment of a bit of property from the Ramnad Samas-thanam as it was before the enactment of the Madras Estates Abolition Act. As owner of the property Subramania Aiyer let into possession Alagiriswami Kone enabling him to occupy an extent of 1-1/2 cents on his paying a monthly rental of Rs. 3. Alagirisami put up a hut in the year 1946 and conducted a grocery business therein. In 1948, according to Alagirisami, there was an agreement between him and Subramania lyer under which he was allowed to build a pucca masonry structure, on the demised land at his own cost with 4definite promise on the part of Subramania lyer not (to evict him so long as he continued to pay the ground rent of Rs. 3 per month and also to sell the site to him in case he wanted to sell away the property. On this assurance on the part of Subramania Aiyar arising out of the agreement referred to Alagirisami constructed a structure of substantial value on the property. The relationship between Subramania Aiyar and Alagirisami continued cordially till Subramania Ayar sold the property under Ex. A. 1 dated 20-9-1951 in favour of one T. J, Antony. The purchaser Antony caused a notice to be issued through, his counsel to Alagirisami to quit and deliver possession of the property as evidenced by Ex. B. L dated 18-2-1952, A reply to this was sent by Alagirisami under Ex. A. 9 dated 27-2-1952 setting out the circumstances under which Be was in possession of the property.

(3.) O. S. No. 5 of 1953 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Ramnad, 'was instituted by Antony for recovery of possession of the said 1-1/2 cents of property from Alagirisamy impleaded as the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff averred that after he purchased the property from C. A, Subramania lyer for Rs. 750 under the registered sale deed dated 20-9-1951 he orally leased out the suit site together with the building thereon to the defendant on a rental of Rs. 5 per month. He complained that the defendant failed to pay the rent and that he also failed to deliver possession on notice to quit. The plaintiff also claimed a sun of Rs. 68-5-4 stated to be arrears of rent from 20-9-1951 the date of purchase, to 1011-1952, at the rate of Rs. 5 per month. This amount was claimed by the plaintiff alternatively, in the event of the court finding that there was no letting out of the property by him to the defendants, as damages for use and occupation of the premises by the defendant