V JANARTHANAN Vs. ALEMELU ANIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 819 of 1995 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 2732 of 1990 is one and the same, who is the appellant in these second appeals.

(2.) SINCE these second appeals arose out of the common judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and the appellant and the respondent in these second appeals are also one and the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment by consent of the learned counsel on either side.

(3.) THE lower appellate Court, considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the appeals filed by the respondent herein, on the ground that Exhibits A-1 and B-4 came into existence on the very same day; that on a combined reading of Exhibits A-1 and B-4, it would be known that there was a lease arrangement between the appellant and the respondent; that the appellant filed O.P. No. 221 of 1979 before the Revenue Court, wherein he called himself as a landlord arraying the respondent as tenant; that even in the earlier suit in O.S. No. 772 of 1972 filed by the appellant herein for permanent injunction against the respondent, he stated that the respondent was only a tenant; that in view of the fact that the appellant himself claimed the relationship of lessor/lessee, not as usufructuary mortgagor, he was not entitled to seek eviction on the ground of usufructuary mortgage.