SYED MALIK BATCHA Vs. SYED AHMED BATCHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below has filed this appeal and on his death, his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 10. This appeal is directed against the dismissal of the suit as confirmed by the first Appellate Court in A.S. No. 236 of 1990 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Madurai.

(2.) The parties have been arrayed as described in the suit.

(3.) The ejectment suit was filed on 15.02.1982 with the following plaint averments. The plaintiff is the younger brother of the first defendant. The suit property of 44 cents comprised in T.S. No. 802/5/2 is situate at Ismailpuram 8th lane, Munichalai, Madurai Town, and it originally belonged to Majan Beebi Sahiba, paternal grandmother of the plaintiff, Syed Malik Batcha. The suit property was partitioned on 30.9.1967 between the co-owners, viz., Syed Malik Batcha, the plaintiff, Ameena Bibi Sahiba, Fathima Bibi Sahiba, A.Syed Khader Batcha, A.Syed Shamsudeen and M.Syed Ahamed Batcha. As per the partition on 30.9.1967, in which all the co-owners have signed accepting the partition plan, plot Nos. 3, 6 and 9 fell to the share of the plaintiff. Plot No. 6 mentioned in the partition plan is the suit property. The other sharers in the partition plan took their respective shares of allotment and they were enjoying the same. In 1968, as per the request made by the first respondent, who is the eldest brother of the plaintiff, the plaintiff leased out the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.20/- for the vacant site. The rent of Rs.20/- per month was paid by the first defendant till December 1975 and from January 1976 onwards, Rs.30/- per month was paid towards rent. In 1968, the first defendant put up three thatched houses with mud walls in the suit vacant site without the written consent of the plaintiff and let out the same to defendants 2 to 4. The defendants 2 to 4 are paying rent to the first defendant. The first defendant agreed to pay the property tax on behalf of the plaintiff, which was assessed to the suit property in 1976. The first defendant was paying the tax in his name and also obtained the signature of the plaintiff in a petition addressed to the Corporation of Madurai, falsely representing to the plaintiff that the assessment was wrongly made in the name of the plaintiff and the assessment should have been made in the name of the first defendant since the assessment related to the property of the first defendant, which is lying on the west in the same survey Number. On coming to know of the same, the plaintiff presented a petition to the Corporation authorities to assess the tax for the suit property in his name as he is the real owner of the said property after deleting the name of the first defendant.