RAMALINGAM Vs. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Ramalingam has filed the second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry in A. S. No. 87 of 1992 in and by which the Principal District Judge has allowed the appeal in part and set aside the finding of the Trial court that Ex. A3 is a lease deed and the plaintiff is a lessee under the defendant and found that the defendant viz. , Subramanian will have to take separate action for ejecting the said Ramalingam and for other reliefs and that the said Ramalingam can continue to enjoy the land for a period of six months.

(2.) THE said suit viz. , O. S. No. 804 of 1990 was filed by the said Ramalingam praying for permanent injunction against the defendant Subramanian on the allegations that he should not be evicted except under due process of law and that the suit property was leased to the plaintiff Ramalingam on 16. 8. 1986 by the defendant for yearly rent of Rs. 1125/= after receiving four years rent in advance (Rs. 4500/=) and that from the date of lease, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as Cultivating Tenant and when that being so, the defendant suddenly came and threatened the plaintiff on 15. 9. 1990 to vacate the suit property and that the matter was reported to panchayatdars and the panchayatdars, in turn, advised the defendant not to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and however, the defendant has chosen to issue notice through advocate on 18. 9. 1990 as if the defendant executed only usufructuary mortgage and that therefore, the plaintiff happened to file the suit.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant with the allegations that the plaintiff is not a cultivating tenant of the suit property under the defendant and instead the suit property was given to the plaintiff on usufructuary mortgage for four years from 16. 8. 1986 for a consideration of Rs. 4500/= and that after expiry of the said period, the defendant issued notice to the plaintiff indicating the defendant's right to redeem the suit property and that therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.