SIVASANKARAN Vs. UNNAMALAI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant, who was successful before the trial Court, and failed before the first appellate Court, is the appellant.

(2.) The suit for declaration and for consequential relief of possession, coupled with mesne profits, was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents on the ground that the suit property belongs to them ancestrally, that the same was leased out to the first defendant, who in turn subleased the same to the second defendant, and that despite demand and notice, they have not only failed to pay the arrears of lease amount, but also failed to deliver possession of the suit property, in addition, the second defendant denied the title, thereby prayed for the above said reliefs.

(3.) The second defendant opposed the claim of the plaintiffs, contending that neither the plaintiffs nor their alleged predecessor in title, had any semblance of right at any point of time, over the suit properties and that in fact, the suit property belongs to him by purchase in which the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any interest, which should follow, neither the question of possession nor the profit will arise for consideration. Thus, setting up title in himself, the second defendant opposed the claim praying for the dismissal of the suit.