RAJAMANI AMMAL Vs. POOVAYEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGAL representatives of the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property, recovery of arrears of rent and also for damages for use and occupation, have focussed the instant Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.7.2004 passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in A.S. No. 60 of 2003 wherein and by which the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2003 made in O.S. No. 28 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, were reversed.

(2.) PENDING suit, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives have been brought on record before the trial Court.

(3.) AS per the averments set out in the plaint, the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff, who had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff was also paying tax as he was in a thatched shed in the property and as he had been in long and uninterrupted enjoyment of the property, also claimed prescribed title to the suit property. It is stated that in 1992, the first defendant requested the plaintiff to permit him to occupy the property as a tenant and considering his request, agreeing the same, the plaintiff executed a rental agreement dated 13.3.1992 for a period of three years for a monthly rental of Rs.5/ -. Even after the expiry of the lease period, the defendant did not hand over possession of the property. According to the plaintiff, there is also a tamarind tree in the property but, however, only the plaintiff had the right to use the trees. The plaintiff also contended that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent. Hence, the suit was filed for recovery of possession and arrears of rent and also for the relief of damages for use and occupation.