ELLEN Vs. P L CHOCKALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Revisions are directed against the impugned orders passed by the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, allowing the amendment application, re-opening the case for additional evidence and allowing the application to amend the Plaint regarding the valuation. Since common points for consideration arise in all the three revisions, all three revisions were taken up together for hearing.

(2.) FOR appreciation of the contentious points, it is necessary to refer to the brief facts :-O. S. No. 2837/1996 was filed by the Respondent/ Plaintiff relating to house at D. No. 3, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, II Street, Kottur. Case of the Plaintiff is that his father Palaniappa Chettiar had purchased the suit property and other items of properties in T. S. Nos. 122/11,122/33 measuring about thirteen grounds. Late Palaniappa Chettiar had appointed a watchman by name Ram Singh, to look after the entire thirteen grounds. The Watchman was also provided a small thatched hut at Door No. 3 viz. , the suit property. The entire area was later developed. The said Palaniappa Chettiar sold seven grounds out of the thirteen grounds during his life time. Watchman Ram Singh had vacated the place even during the life time of Palaniappa Chettiar. Palaniappa Chettiar died on 24. 11. 1982. Thereafter, the Defendant was asked to reside in the hut portion and look after the property. After the death of Palaniappa Chettiar, the Plaintiff was vested with a power of attorney by the legal heirs of Palaniappa Chettiar on 29. 10. 1984. The Defendant was allowed to construct brick and cement mortar wall with asbestos sheet in the place of hut portion. It was assessed to house tax by the Revenue Authorities, Corporation of Madras and the Plaintiff had paid the property tax. With ulterior motive, claiming right over the suit property, the Defendants have been trying to sell away the property to third parties. But coming to know about the same, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to vacate the premises. Instead of vacating the premises, the Defendant called the local people to settle the matter in his favour. The Defendant had also sent petitions to Chief Minister's Cell to grab the property. Hence the Plaintiff has filed the suit for delivery of possession and for consequential injunction restraining the Defendant from in any way putting up construction in the suit property.

(3.) DENYING the allegations in the Plaint, the Defendant has filed the Written Statement contending that in the year 1978, Palaniappa Chettiar received Rs. 10,000/- from the Defendant and sold one ground of land to the Defendant. Palaniappa Chettiar promised to execute the Sale Deed. But later did not execute the same and he passed away. After his death, the remaining property were sold by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff never asked the Defendant to vacate. Since the price of the property has escalated the Plaintiff is trying to dispossess the Defendant from the suit property, falsely alleging that the Defendant is in permissive occupation. The Defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property since 1978. He has put up super structure by spending more than Rs. 52,000/ -. The Defendant is the owner of the land as well as the super structure. He is in possession of one ground of land and the building thereon. In such circumstances, the suit to recover possession of the house property is not maintainable. The trial commenced. Examination of witnesses was also concluded and the case was posted for arguments.