S. MUNAVARSULTHANA Vs. MALIKA R. GANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.414 of 2006 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Timchirappalli is the appellant in this second appeal. The appellant purchased the property comprised in SurveyNo.234/1 (B) measuring an extent of 1500 square feet from the defendant vide sale deed dated 14.09.2005 and registered as document No.3589/5. When the plaintiff purchased the property, it was a vacant site. The plaintiff wanted to put up a construction thereon. When he approached the Corporation of Trichy for getting the plan approval, he was informed that the vacant site tax had not been paid for the period from 1999-2000 till 14.09.2005. Since the plaintiff had to emergently obtain approval, she paid a sum of Rs.17,182/- to clear the aforesaid arrears. Thereafter, she issued Ex.A2-notice dated 17.12.2005 demanding reimbursement from the defendant. The defendant issued reply dated 13.01.2006 (Ex.A3) refusing to comply with the demand set out in the notice. Hence, the suit came to be instituted. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.I and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. On the side of the defendant, Ex.Bl-letter issued by the local body on 07.11.2005 was marked. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence adduced on either side, by judgment and decree dated 23.07.2007 decreed the suit as prayed for. Questioning the same, the defendant filed A.S.No.78 of 2008 before the Principal Sub Court, Trichy. By Judgment and decree dated 27.06.2010, the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Questioning the same, this second appeal came to be filed.

(2.) The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would point out that the defendant in her written statement had categorically claimed that till the date of sale, she had paid all the tax arrears for the land. But this claim was not at all established in evidence. He would further point out that the plaintiff having paid substantial sum towards sale consideration could not wait indefinitely to get the matter resolved. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be blamed for paying a sum of Rs. 17,000/- to the local body, when it was pointed out that tax dues remained unpaid. He would strongly contend that the first Appellate Court completely misdirected itself by holding that failure to notify the vendor about non payment of tax arrears would result in non-suiting the plaintiff altogether. He also would point out that the defendant avoided entering the witness box and therefore, adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the defendant. He submitted that the substantial questions of law deserve to be answered in favour of the appellant and pressed for restoring the decision of the trial Court.