AMIRTHAVALLI Vs. SANTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, made in A.S.No.136/88 wherein the judgment of the trial Court granting a decree in a suit for declaration and damages was reversed.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff as could be seen from the averments made in the plaint, is as follows: The suit property is a house situated in the Harijan Colony of Chinnamanaickenpatty Hamlet of Balaraajapuram, Kulithalai Taluk, and the same was assigned by the Government in favour of one Palanisamy, the husband of the plaintiff, who took possession of the same immediately after the assignment. The husband of the plaintiff had to be away from the village. He was a teacher. The defendant approached the plaintiff's husband for letting out the property on rent. The husband of the plaintif agreed to the same and leased out the property to the defendant. In fact the defendant also had a house, assigned in his favour and let out it to a close relative. There was an oral tenancy agreement between the plaintiff's husband and the defendant. The defendant took possession of the property as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs.20/- payable according to the Gregorian Calendar. The defendant was in possession, enjoyment and occupation of the same as a tenant under the plaintiff, and the rent was paid upto February 1984, and thereafter, there was arrears to the tune of Rs.560/-. The plaintiff's husband died leaving the plaintiff and six minor children as the heirs. They sought for surrender of the property; but, the defendant was evading, and he did not hand over the same. In such circumstances, it became necessary for filing the suit.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant stating that the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff's husband Palanisamy, and subsequently, there was an oral tenancy agreement between Palanisamy and the defendant, and the defendant was in possession of the property all along as a tenant, and there was a rental payment upto February 1984, and subsequently, there were arrears of rent, was false and tobe denied; that the suit property was allotted in favour of the defendant; that he has been in possession all along; that the plaintiff has no right over the same, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.