MUNIAMMAL Vs. JAGANNATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred from the judgment and decree of the Additional District Court, Vellore, made in A.S.No. 13 of 1990, dated 10.4.1990 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Ranipet, rendered in O.S.No. 595 of 1986, dated 30.11.1989.

(2.) THE respondents herein filed a suit seeking for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and for delivery of possession alleging that the said property originally belong to one Pushpa Ammal who mortgaged the same for a sum of Rs. 700 on 11.7.1977 to the defendant under the registered simple mortgage deed that a separate arrangement was executed between them by Muchalika on 17.7.1977 wherein the appellant agreed to occupy the suit property without paying any rent in lieu of interest for the mortgage and to deliver the possession of the same on payment of the mortgage amount that the said Pushpa Animal with her daughters and son discharged the mortgage on 15.5.1979 and sold the property to one Parvathi Ammal and also to the 5th plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 400 that the appellant without delivering the possession of the property to Pushpa Ammal even after discharge of the mortgage amount has continued to be in illegal and unlawful possession that the appellant issued a notice to the said Pushpa Ammal and to the 5th respondent and also to Parvathi Ammal contending false allegations which was suitably replied by the respondents that the appellant was squatting over the suit property without any manner of right, title or interest. Under the stated circumstances, the respondents have sought the relief of declaration and recovery of possession.

(3.) THE said claim of the respondents was vehemently opposed to by the appellant stating what was mortgaged by Pushpa Ammal was only of vacant site and on her assurance to sell the property, the appellant made construction spending Rs. 6,000 and hence the sale executed by Pushpa Ammal was neither valid nor binding on the appellant that Pushpa Ammal who was the owner of the vacant site could not convey the superstructure that belongs to the appellant that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the City Tenants Protection Act and hence the respondents were not entitled for their relief.