RAMAN Vs. BALAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.4.1992 rendered in A.S.No.58 of 1982 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 2.4.1982 rendered in O.S.No.422 of 1979 of by the Court of District Munsif, Tiruvarur.

(2.) Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred what comes to be known is that the appellants herein have filed the suit in O.S.No.422 of 1979 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Tiruvarur against the father of the respondents for recovery of possession of the suit property, for recovery of Rs.780/- and for costs on averments such as that the suit property belongs to the first plaintiff absolutely; that he got the same by a registered Will dated 2.6.1971 executed by one Alamelu Ammal, who was the grand mother of the second plaintiff; that the defendant had been residing in the suit property, which is a tiled house, as a tenant under the said Alamelu Ammal and after her death, under the first plaintiff; that the tenancy is oral and the rent is Rs.5/- per mensem for the house alone; that there are 9 coconut trees and for the coconut trees, as per the oral agreement between the parties, the defendant has to give 400 coconuts per year as rent; that the defendant wilfully defaulted to pay rent for 2 years and the coconuts for 3 years prior to December 1972 and hence the first plaintiff gave a registered notice to the defendant terminating his tenancy with the end of 31.1.1973 further demanding possession of the suit property; that the defendant is bound to give 1200 coconuts for 3 years; that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.600/- towards the value of the said coconuts and Rs.180/- towards damages for use and occupation of the suit property for 3 years at the rate of Rs.5/- per month; that the defendant is bound to put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit property and he is liable to pay the suit amount; that the defendant is not entitled to any benefits under Act 40/1971. On such averments, the plaintiffs would pray for the relief extracted supra.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the deceased defendant, besides generally denying the allegations of the plaint, he would further specifically allege that the suit house is a thatched house and partly tiled house; that since the defendant had constructed the superstructure several years before, the entire house and the superstructure belongs to the defendant; that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the house; that the defendant is paying taxes for the house for many years; that the assessment also stands in the name of the defendant; that there was no tenancy agreement to pay Rs.5/- per month as rent; that there was no agreement to pay 400 coconuts per year; that in fact, all the coconut trees have been raised by the defendant several years back; that the 2nd plaintiff, some 20 years back, ordered to pull down a portion of the tiled house in order to take out the bars and other materials to utilise in the renovation of his own house; that after the removal, the defendant constructed a pucca tiled and thatched house at his own costs; that the defendant is an agriculturist and his principal means of livelihood is only agriculture; that the defendant is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu Act 40/1971; that further, the defendant was given the assignment of the suit land by the competent authority and the patta has also been issued in his name long back; that as per the order of patta, the coconut trees were also vested with the defendant; that under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Act 40/1971, no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Government or the authorised officer is empowered by or under this Act; that since the ownership of the suit property is vested with the defendant as per the Act 40/1971, the defendant is not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the plaintiff; that the claim for damages and mesne profits are not sustainable in law; that the description of the property offered in the plaint is incorrect. On such averments the defendant would pray to dismiss the suit with costs.