LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-473

THE COMMISSIONER, KANCHEEPURAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. NAGABOOSHANAM

Decided On February 02, 2015
The Commissioner, Kancheepuram Municipality Appellant
V/S
Nagabooshanam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant Municipality is the appellant herein. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff under perpetual lease.

(2.) THE plaintiff has come forward with the present suit for the relief as stated above on the strength of the lease granted in favour of her grandmother by name Baggiammal, which is according to the plaintiff, perpetual or permanent lease. It is her contention that the lease having been permanent and the lease having been ratified by the Municipality was succeeded by the plaintiff's mother, Pattammal, who is none other than the sister of Baggiammal, under the registered Will dated 02.08.1995. After the plaintiff's mother, the plaintiff has succeeded to the same and the defendant has no manner of right to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) THE Trial Court negatived the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 22 of 2005 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court by holding that on the failure of the Municipality to take steps to recover possession from Baggiammal even after breach of the conditions of the assignment, thereby allowing her to continue in the occupation and the possession of her daughter and grand daughter/plaintiff along with the Baggiammal and the continues to be in possession and enjoyment of the property and hence to the relief for possession is sought for herein. Another finding based on which the Lower Appellate Court granted injunction is that the failure on the part of the Municipality to take steps to recover possession will convert the lease into that of permanent lease, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Aggrieved against the same, the defendant has preferred the present Second Appeal before this Court.