SAROJA AMMAL Vs. VALLIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/defendants have filed this Second Appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.1998 made in A.S.No.16/1997, on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 29.11.1996, made in O.S.No.298/1981, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Madurai.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession and past damages of Rs.50/- per month from 12.12.1979 and also future damages at the rate of Rs.50/- per month. Briefly, the case of the respondent/plaintiff is that she purchased the suit property and other properties from one Ayyalu Naidu under a sale deed dated 22.08.1978 and it is in possession of the appellants/defendants, as lessee from the plaintiff's vendor viz., Ayyalu Naidu. It is further stated in the plaint that originally the suit property was under lease to one Govindaraja Konar and he had sold the rice mill machineries and other accessories to the defendants in January 1978 and these defendants thereafter attorned to the plaintiff's vendor to then owner Ayyalu Naidu and was paying monthly rent of Rs.50/-. A few days after the above said lease, the said Ayyalu Naidu borrowed a sum of Rs.2000/- from the first defendant on 30.01.1978 and executed a simple mortgage deed and also some arrangement between them, a sum of Rs.40/- was adjusted towards interest due on the mortgage and 1st defendant was paying Rs.10/- towards rent for the suit building. In the sale deed executed by Ayyalu Naidu in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.19,000/-, the plaintiff, as vendee, was directed to redeem the mortgage debt to the first defendant for Rs.2,000/-. Hence, the plaintiff issued a notice to the first defendant to suffer redemption of mortgage and receive the amount and return the mortgage bond. Since the first defendant refused to receive the amount, the plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of the said mortgage against the first defendant in O.S.No.463/1979 in the Court of District Munsif, Madurai on 24.10.1979. Since the first defendant not contested the case, a preliminary decree was passed on 23.04.1980.

(3.) ON the side of the plaintiff has filed reply statement in which it is stated that the defendants were informed by the plaintiff of her purchase of the suit property even long prior to the filing of the suit but the defendants failed to attorn to the plaintiff and in fact they denied the tenancy and also title of the plaintiff to the suit property and therefore, issued notice for forfeiture of tenancy to the defendants and requested them to remove the rice mill and vacated the premises and handed over the possession to the plaintiff. The defendants have also denied the allegation that the alleged tenancy cannot and will not came into end under the law it is not admitted and as a fact, there is no tenancy relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and also denied the allegation that the suit property come within the definition of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Further, the above said Act is not applicable to the Village, where the suit building was situated and further, they are not entitled to the benefits of the Act, since they are denied the relationship of tenancy and title of the plaintiff even prior to filing of the suit and therefore, prayed for decreeing the suit with exemplary costs.