PERUMAL Vs. BOYOT SELVACARASSOU, POWER AGENT BOYOT VIRAPPIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction is raised in this appeal and that issue as well as other issues that arise will be dealt with.

(2.) According to the respondent / plaintiff, the suit property belonged to one Ponnurangam Pillai who died in the year 1952 leaving behind three sons and the wife of a predeceased son. He executed a will on 29.8.1940, bequeathing his properties to his wife and the four persons above named. The beneficiaries effected a partition amongst themselves on 17.5.1979. The suit property is located in Cadastre Nos.159 and 159 Bis. This share was allotted to Pandurangam, Ponnurangam's son. On 19.2.1981, the respondent purchased the property from Pandurangam. The suit property in which there are coconut groves, was orally leased out to one Dhanusu Pillai and his sons. These lessees subleased the property to a number of tenants, one of whom was the appellant's father Muruga Gramany alias Murugesa Gramany. The arrangement commenced in the year 1959 and after the original tenant's death, his son the appellant continued in possession. The respondent called upon the appellant to vacate the premises, but the appellant proceeded to put up construction without seeking permission of the respondent. Therefore, a police complaint was given. Earlier there were Referee proceedings between the respondent/his predecessors -in -interest and Dhanusu Pillai and the appellant. The matter came up to this Court too. Notice was issued terminating the tenancy. The suit O.S.105/83 was filed for declaration and recovery of possession.

(3.) The appellant resisted the suit stating that Pandurangam Pillai had also sought recovery of possession and he did not succeed. The appellant denied that he was a tenant. The appellant also denied the respondent's title. According to the appellant, he and his family were living in the suit property for more than 100 years. In all the prior proceedings, the appellant's case that there was no landlord / tenant relationship was accepted. In 1973, in Special Appeal, two Judges of this Court held in favour of the appellant. The appellant also claimed that he had perfected title by adverse possession. The appellant refused to approve of the partition deed dated 17.5.1979. He along with 200 others were poor people in huts residing in the vast place comprising Cadastre Nos.159 and 159 Bis. For all the above grounds, the appellant prayed that the suit should be dismissed. This in brief was the case of the two parties before the trial Court.