PACHAIAMMAL; R PANDARINATHAN Vs. MANGALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No.678 of 1988 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Vellore - North Arcot District, as against her daughter and son-in-law, who are the appellants herein, with a prayer for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property on the ground that the appellants herein/defendants requested the respondent/plaintiff to provide them with accommodation, whereupon, she permitted them to occupy the two rooms in the front portion of the suit property on payment of Rs.50/- as monthly rent, and since the defendants committed default in payment of rent, she asked them to vacate the portions occupied by them, however, the defendants declined to vacate; hence, the suit. The said suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that they are not tenants as alleged by the plaintiff and that, since they put up the superstructure on the suit land based on the right they have over the same, there is no question of any tenancy or permissive possession; therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected.

(2.) The learned District Munsif, by Judgment and decree, dated 21.10.1992, decreed the suit and, aggrieved by such verdict, the defendants went on appeal by filing A.S. No.23 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, and the learned first appellate Judge also, concurring with the findings of the trial court, dismissed the appeal. The said concurrent judgments of the courts below are challenged in this Second Appeal.

(3.) At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration: