M INBAMANI Vs. KARUPPAYI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of Principal District Munsif, Dindigul dated 20. 08. 2001 in I. A. No. 136 of 2001 in O. S. No. 381 of 1999 allowing the Application filed under Sec. 5 of the limitation Act and condoning the delay of 141 days in filing the Petition to set aside the exparte decree on condition of payment of Rs. 750/ -. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) THE Suit Property relates to the Property (said to be the Trust Property) in T. S. No. 170/8, 171/1,2 Thadikombu Road, Kurambapatti village, Dindigul Taluk. Case of the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff is that as per the Family Arrangement, the Suit Property and other Properties are Trust property of Narayanasamy Pillai. Further case of the Revision Petitioner / plaintiff is that in a Family Arrangement dated 10. 09. 1984, the Plaintiff is entitled to the Suit Properties. Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff's Brother and his Mother have no right in the Suit Properties. But, the Defendant late Arjuna thevar claims to have purchased the Suit Property from the said Manoharan by the Sale Deed dated 22. 02. 1993, which is binding on the Revision Petitioner / plaintiff nor on the Trust. THE Defendant - Arjuna THEvar is bound to deliver vacant possession of the Suit Property and is also liable to pay the damages for use and occupation. Hence, the Suit for recovery of possession and for damages for use and occupation.

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the order of allowing the Application, the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. Assailing the Impugned Order, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner / plaintiff has submitted that in a Suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation, the Defendant � Arjuna Thevar and his Legal Heirs ought to have been more vigilant in defending the case. Contending that the version of P. W. 1 / Second Defendant - Karuppayi Ammal and p. W. 2-Dr. Sokkaiyan is contradictory, learned counsel has further submitted that the contradiction throws doubt on the sickness of Arjuna Thevar. Hence, it is contended that non-filing of the Written Statement by Arjuna Thevar and his non-appearance on 04. 07. 2000 have not been properly explained and that the order of allowing the Petition filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be sustained.