ARUMUGAM PILLAI Vs. MARUTHAKUTTI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 628 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif, coimbatore, who lost before the Courts below is the appellant herein. Admittedly, the suit property belonged to the appellant. On 13-3-1961 the appellant executed a document styled as 'kattuvali Bogyam' for Rs. 4,000 and obtained this amount of Rs. 4,000 from the respondent and put the respondent in possession of the property. On the expiry of the period of five years stipulated in the document the appellant instituted the present suit for recovery of possession. The case of the respondent was that Ex. B-1 was a lease deed and therefore, under the provision of Madras Act 25 of 1955 he was entitled to remain in possession of the suit property and the appellant herein was not entitled to recover possession thereof from the respondent. The Courts below accepted this contention of the respondent and dismissed the suit instituted by the appellant. Hence the present second appeal filed by the plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) THERE was no oral evidence in this case and the matter has been argued before the Courts below only on the basis of the terms of Ex. B. 1 as to whether it constituted an usufructuary mortgage for a period of five years or it constituted a lease. The document styles itself as 'kattuvali bogyam' for Rs. 4,000/ -. Having referred to the fact that the suit property belonged to the appellant by purchase under the registered document No. 378 of 1936 the document proceeds to state- (original script in Tamil omitted)The significant features to be noticed in this document are :

(3.) HENCE the second appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees of the courts below are set aside. The suit instituted by the appellant will stand decreed as prayed for.