(1.) THE present Second Appeals have been filed by Gnanammal and her legal heirs, questioning the correctness of the Judgment and decree, dated 20.10.2005, passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, in A.S. Nos.134 of 2005 and 137 of 2005, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 10.02.2005, of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, in O.S. Nos.664 of 2001 and 1400 of 2004.
(2.) GNANAMMAL had filed Original Suit No.664 of 2001 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. A widow, struggling with her children under penurious circumstances for survival, she settled down in India during 1965 as a refugee from Burma. She pleaded that, expressing her pathetic position as a poor refugee from Burma, she had appealed to the Government of Tamil Nadu for allotment of a house site for dwelling, whereupon, Site No.13 in S.F. No.379/2 in Burma Colony, Saravanampatti, Coimbatore, was allotted to her and after constructing a house, she started living therein along with her children. She was issued with a communication letter, dated 02.11.1973, from the Director of Rehabilitation; Rehabilitation Certificate dated 17.07.1965 and also joint patta dated 19.09.2000 from the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Coimbatore. It was further pleaded that, while so, the defendant/Pappathi @ Arockiamary, who was serving as a housemaid at the plaintiff's house, on securing a job at Sankara Eye Hospital as Sweeper on a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/-, gave up the housemaid work, and sometime during January, 1999, she had approached the plaintiff to let out a room on rent for her stay during nights and holidays. Accepting her request, the appellant herein had let out to the defendant a portion of the house on the eastern side for a rent of Rs.200/- per month and the defendant agreed to pay the rent on or before the 5th day of every English calendar month and, on that basis, the defendant stayed as a tenant. But, only a few days after taking possession of the rented premises, the defendant started quarrelling with the plaintiff by using filthy language and behaving like the landlady of the premises let out to to her by the plaintiff. Further, in an endeavour to wrongfully assert that she was the landlady, the defendant started to construct a wall so as to prevent the plaintiff's ingress and egress and to stall the repair work carried out at the plaintiff's house. Left with no other alternative, the plaintiff had lodged a complaint with Saravanampatti Police Station on 21.2.2001. Since the defendant still endeavoured to usurp the property, the plaintiff ultimately filed the suit in O.S. No.664 of 2001 for delivery of peaceful possession of the suit property with a consequential prayer for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men from in any manner interfering with the suit property by way of construction or modification and also for a direction to the defendant to pay to the plaintiff damages for use and occupation of the suit property at the rate of Rs.500/- per month with effect from the date of institution of the suit until delivery of possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
(3.) THE appellant herein challenged the verdict of the trial court before the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore, by filing A.S. Nos.134 and 137 of 2005, and vide Judgement and decree dated 20.10.2005, by agreeing with the finding of the trial court that both the plaintiffs, one of whom is a Burmese Refugee and widow while the other is a deserted lady by the husband, have been continuously residing in their respective portions/tiled house put up by them since 1981 in the site belonged to one Vadivel, who after going to Madras never returned back, and by concurring with the ultimate verdict that the plaintiffs are entitled only for permanent injunction operating against each other in respect of the respective portions occupied by them, the lower appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court; hence, the present Second Appeals.