BALASUBRAMANIA NADALVAR Vs. SARABOJI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. The suit is for delivery of possession of the suit properties and for recovery of Rs. 1100 being the damages for use and occupation of the suit properties for two years prior to suit.

(2.) THE dispute in this case is between the grandsons of one Ramaswami Gounder his first wife Achiammal and his son-in-law who married his daughter by the second wife by name Kanakammal. The suit properties originally belonged to one natesa Gounder, father of the defendant, and were sold by him under Ex. A-29 dated 19-1-1934 to the father of the plaintiff and was leased back by the purchaser to the father of the defendant under Ex. A-30 dated 20-1-1934. The case of the plaintiff is that the original lessee Kandasami was paying rent to his father regularly, that after the lessee's death the son of the defendant who continued in possession was similarly paying the rent to his maternal uncle during his minority and to him after he attained majority that the defendant committed default in payment of rent for two years prior to suit that on enquiry the plaintiff learnt that the defendant had effected a transfer of patta in his name fraudulently and that the present suit is filed for recovery of possession with past profits.

(3.) THE defense to the suit is that the sale deed Ex. A-29 was obtained benami in the name of the plaintiff's father in order to avoid claims on the part of the defendant's brother that the lease deed Ex. A-30, dated 20-1-1934 was also obtained in similar circumstances that on the expiry of the period mentioned in Ex. A-30 the defendant's father surrendered possession and the defendant had taken possession in pursuance of his title and has been in continuous possession ever-since exercising rights of ownership and in any event he has perfected his title to the suit properties by adverse possession. The further defense raised is due to the recent disputes between the plaintiff and the grandmother of the defendant the present suit is filed taking advantage of the fact that the sale deed Ex. a-29 stood in the name of his father and that claim is barred by limitation also.