BOOTHATHAN Vs. SUBBIAH THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in the suit and appellant before the Subcourt is the appellant in this second appeal. Plaintiff is the father of the defendant/appellant. He had filed a suit for declaration and for recovery of possession of the suit property at Door No.20-B, South Street, Ward III of Melakottaram Village, fully described in the schedule to the plaint. The trial court granted the decree in favour of the father and it was confirmed in appeal. The second appeal is against this confirming judgment and decree.

(2.) PLAINTIFF, who is already 80 years old, has put up a house by utilising his own funds and the funds given on his retirement after thirty years of service as Labourer in Madura Coats. He had put up two houses side by side after obtaining planning permission from the Panchayat. The property has been assessed in the name of the respondent and he had been paying electricity, water and other charges. The respondent has got two sons and two daughters. The appellant, being slightly handicapped, the respondent had helped him to get a job in the same mill where he had worked and permitted him to occupy one of his two houses. However, instead of helping the respondent and other members of the family, he refused to assist him in getting his daughters married and even to provide him food and other basic necessities, which are the duties expected of a son. The respondent had to struggle hard to get his two daughters married without the assistance and help of the appellant. While the appellant was not providing food and other assistance, he attempted to secure the house property which the respondent had permitted him to occupy. He had filed a suit O.S. No.320 of 1992 and the same was pending. In the above circumstances, the respondent was constrained to issue a notice on 10.7.1993 cancelling his permission and requesting the appellant to vacate the house and hand over possession to him, and on his failure to do so, when the appellant made false claims over the house property which the respondent has put up, the respondent was constrained to file the above suit.

(3.) THE courts below found that the respondent had sufficient funds to purchase this vacant land in the end of the year 1975 since he was retiring after thirty years of service and he should have utilised his retirement benefits for the purchase of the vacant land, which was admittedly in his name. Whereas, the appellant had joined the service temporarily only in the year 1974 and he was getting a salary of Rs.75 per month and his services became permanent only after 1-1/2 years. THErefore, there was no possibility for the appellant to have contributed any funds and his case that he has jointly purchased the property along with his father was rightly disbelieved by both the courts below. THEre are no records whatsoever to show that the appellant has contributed for the purchase of the property. Similarly, there are absolutely no records to show that the appellant had contributed for the construction of the house also. From the available records, the courts below found that the planning permission was obtained by the appellant's father and with the plan approved in his name, he has put up the construction with his funds. Admittedly, the suit filed by the appellant O.S. No.323 of 1993 against his father was dismissed on 26.8.1997 for default and no steps had been taken by the appellant for restoration or for further proceedings. THE exhibits marked by the appellant, Exs.B.1 to B.7 had been considered by the appellate court and it was found that in all these documents, the assessment is in the name of the respondent and in some receipts, the name of the person who has remitted the tax had been mentioned and the appellant's name was so mentioned in that column. THE appellant has admitted that if the house was let out, it would have fetched Rs.500 per month.