G.KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. SARANGAPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the Judgement and Decree, passed by the First Appellate Court, in A.S.No.21/1998 dated 26.04.1999, in confirming the Judgement and Decree passed by the Trial Court, in O.S.No.340 of 1990, dated 17.09.1997.

(2.) FOR the better appreciation of this appeal, the brief averments in the plaint, as well as in the written statement are reproduced here under:

(3.) THE dry land described in 'A' schedule property originally belonged to one Kumarasamy Gounder, who purchased the same by notaire sale deed, dated 9.1.1961 ,from one Saminatha Gounder and after the death of the said Kumarsamy Gounder, his son Pushpanatha Gounder was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The first defendant got the lease initially from the Pushpanatha Gounder a portion of 'A' schedule property to run workshop and a registered Sale Deed, dated 14.12.1968 was entered into with regard to 'B' schedule property and the lease was come into effect from 1/1/1969 for a period of ten years and the first defendant agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.15/- for the first year and Rs.20/- for the next five years and a Additional area was also leased out subsequently and the first defendant had subsequently subleased entire 'B' schedule property to the defendants 2 to 4, after making payment of Rs.25/- as monthly rent. The said Pushpanatha Gounder sold the 'A' Schedule property to the plaintiff by registered Sale Deed,dated 21.08.1988 and the Plaintiff took the possession of the same, barring the portion of 'A' schedule property detailed in the 'B'Schedule property which is in possession and enjoyment of the defendants 2 to 4. The Plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the possession of the 'B'Schedule property to enable the Plaintiff's wife to expand educational activities i.e. School. The Plaintiff issued notice, dated 02.04.1989 terminating the tenancy of the defendants and demanded vacant possession on or after 1.1.1990, for which the defendants sent a reply disputing the landlord-tenant relationship, by stating that they are the absolute owners for more than thirty years for 'B'Schedule property. The plaintiff therefore prays to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the 'A' Schedule property and direct the defendants 1 to 4 to deliver the possession of the 'B' Schedule property after removing superstructure and for costs and to pay future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.100/- per month from the date of plaint till delivery of possession.