SOURA BEEVIAMMAL Vs. AMMEENA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendant in Original Suit No. 636 of 1972 on the file of he Additional District Munsif, Pudukottai is the Appellant in the second appeal. The Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in the said suit. The Plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was a tenant under the Plaintiff and after termination of the tenancy, the Defendant is liable to be ejected. The Defendant resisted the suit denying the title of the Plaintiff. The Defendant pleaded that the suit property was purchased benami in the name of the Plaintiff by the husband of the Defendant, who was none else then the son of the Plaintiff and the Defendant is in possession of the property in her own right. The Plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 120 representing one year's rent for possession under Sec. 43(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court -Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. Besides, she has separately valued the suit for recovery of arrears of rent.

(2.) The question of tenancy pleaded by the Plaintiff was gone into by the first Court and incidentally it also went into the question of title. The first Court found that the tenancy pleaded by the Plaintiff is not true and accordingly it non -suited the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff appealed and the appeal in Appeal Suit No. 97 of 1977 was heard and disposed of by the Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai. The lower appellate Court held that though the tenancy is not established yet in view of the title of the Plaintiff to the property and as the Defendant has no title to the property, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for ejectment and she is entitled to possession of the property. In this view, the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the first Court and decreed the suit of the Plaintiff for possession. The present second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. At the time of the admission of the second appeal, the following question of law was mooted out for consideration:

(3.) Mack J., in Gopalu v/s. Venkatesu : A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 513 following the decision in Balas dhantam v/s. Perumal Chetti, (1914) I.L.W. 641 held that the question of title cannot be gone into in a suit for rent.