V MUTHIAH PILLAI Vs. VEDAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants.

(2.) The appeal arises out of O.S.18 of 1974 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai. The said suit is for declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits.

(3.) The averments in the plaint are shortly as under - (i) The suit property bearing door No. 41, Sokkappa Naicken St. Madurai was originally purchased by one Subbanna Iyer by a registered sale deed dated 5-6-1924. He died in the year 1927, leaving behind his widow Lakshmi Ammal and his only daughter Vengalakshmi. By a registered adoption deed Ex. A6 dated 16-7-1936, the third defendant was adopted by Sethurama Iyer the husband of Vengalakshmi and Vengalakshmi as their son. On the death of Lakshmi Ammal in 1939 Vengalakshmi, the daughter, succeeded to the property and was enjoying the same, as woman's estate. Vengalakshmi died in 1945. On her death, her adopted son the third defendant succeeded to the property. (ii) By a registered sale deed Ex.A1 dated 22-6-1972, the plaintiffs purchased the property for a valuable consideration of Rs. 32,000. (iii) Pursuant to the sale, the third defendant wrote a registered letter on 11-7-1972, calling upon defendants 1 and 2 to attorn their tenancy in favour of plaintiffs, informing them of the sale that has taken place in their favour. Likewise, the plaintiffs also issued a registered notice under Ex.A2 on 10-7-1972, to the defendants 1 and 2 requesting them to vacate the house and deliver vacant possession. Under Ex.A4, dated 4-8-1972, the defendants 1 and 2 sent a reply denying the right of the third defendant to sell the house and setting up title on the first defendant. Thereupon, the plaintiffs contacted the third defendant to inform them that the allegations in the reply notice were wholly unfounded. They learnt from the third defendant that the second defendant was given to licentious and profligate ways of life. He never cared for the family or the first defendant. It was under these circumstances, the third defendant taking pity permitted the first defendant to live in the suit house and she was permitted to collect the rents from the tenants and utilise the same towards her maintenance after paying the taxes and kist for the properties. The possession of the first defendant was, therefore, permissive. The third defendant persuaded the plaintiffs not to rush to court promising to prevail upon the defendants 1 and 2 to abandon their untenable claim. But that promise has not been fulfilled. Therefore, the present suit has come to be filed.