APPARASU PILLAI Vs. PATCHAIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.199 of 1973 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry is the appellant in the second appeal.

(2.) HE filed the suit against his three sisters and one Pakkiri, husband of one of the sisters Vijayam for declaration that he was the exclusive and absolute owner of the suit property, to evict the third defendant from the portion of the suit property in her occupation and deliver possession of the same, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession, to direct the defendants to pay mesne profits at Rs.20/- per month from 17.10.1972 till delivery of possession, and to recover the uncollected rent from the defendants at the rate of Rs.36 per month on the following averments: The suit property belonged to one Murugesa Pillai, who died about 33 years prior to the suit, leaving behind his wife Thayanayagi, son/plaintiff, and three daughters/defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff became entitled to the suit property on the death of Murugesa Pillai as his only son and the sole heir. On 12.6.1967, he mortgaged the suit property to one Gunasekaran for Rs.1,500/-for repairing the suit house and constructing tiled roofs in the place of thatched roof. HE allowed the third defendant to reside in a portion of the suit property since she came away from her husband's house on account of misunderstanding. HE was maintaining his mother, and, out of pity, his sister/third defendant also. Mother died in 1971. On 17.10.1972, the fourth defendant issued a lawyer notice alleging that he and the other defendants had inherited the suit property. HE also claimed that he got transfer of the mortgage amount and demanded the plaintiff and the defendants to pay interest and redeem the mortgage. The plaintiff sent a reply stating that defendants 1 to 3 had no right in the suit property. On 1.2.1973, he asked the third defendant to vacate the portion of the suit property occupied by her and set out in 'B' schedule. As defendants 1 to 3 were interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the remaining portion and preventing the tenants, occupying another portion, from paying the rent to the plaintiff, the third defendant was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs.20 per month. They were also liable to pay the rent, uncollected by the plaintiff, and collected by them.

(3.) ON issue No.2, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the third defendant was receiving Rs.100 per month as pension from her husband's office, that there was no justification for her to claim a right of maintenance in the suit property as contended by her, and that it would be reasonable to allow her to continue her possession till her life time without any other liability from the plaintiff.