N E MURUGESA CHETTIAR Vs. T S DAWOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The abovesaid two second appeals arise from the same suit in O.S.No. 676 of 1972 on the file of the 11th Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras.

(2.) One T.S.Dawood (plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.676 of 1972) filed the suit against the trustees of the Vasantha Mandapam Trust attached to Sri Kandaswami Koil (first defendant in the suit O.S.No.676 of 1972) and one N.E. Murugesan Chettiar alias Murugan (second defendant in the suit O.S.No.676 of 1972) who claimed to be a lessee, for specific performance by way of mandatory injunction directing the trustees to perform the contract of lease by executing and registering a lease deed in favour of the plaintiff recognising him as a tenant to the premises bearing door Nos.36 to 38 Nyaniappa Naicken Street, George Town, Madras, on a monthly rent of Rs.200.00,for directing the second defendant to deliver possession of the premises, for permanent injunction restraining the trustees from leasing out the suit premises to any other person and for costs. The trial Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. As against the said judgment and decree of the trial court the first defendant viz., the trustees of the Vasantha Mandapam Trust attached to Sri Kandaswamy Koil, filed an appeal A.S.No. 226 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the Second Additional City Civil Judge, Madras. The second defendant who claimed to be a lessee under the said judgment and decree of the trial Court in A.S.No. 188 of 1976 on the file of the Second Add1. City Civii 3udge, Madras. Both these appeals were heard together. The lower appellate Court on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence came to the same conclusion as that of the trial Court and dismissed both the appeals. As against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.226 of 1976 the trustees of the Vasantha Mandapam trust attached to Sri Kandaswamy Koil, filed S.A.No.961 of 1979. Similarly as against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.188 of 1976 the alleged lessee filed S.A.No.2261 of 1978. Since the subject matter of both these appeals are same they were heard together.

(3.) The parties are referred to as per their rank in the suit.