RAMAYEE Vs. SAKTHIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINALLY, the Plaintiff/appellant herein has filed O.S. No. 562 of 1988 against the defendants therein for permanent injunction, which was dismissed by a decree and Judgment dated 21.08.1991. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed an appeal in A.S. No. 64 of 1991 before the first appellate Court, which was allowed by a decree and judgment dated 07.04.1992 thereby the matter was remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration. On remand, the trial court heard both sides and decreed the suit by a decree and judgment dated 30.04.1993. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 2 to 5 have preferred A.S. No. 56 of 1994 before the Sub-court, Dharapuram which was allowed, hence the present second appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff/appellant herein was that the suit property belonged to the second defendant, who has executed a usufructory mortgage in favour of one Nachimuthu Gounder and received a sum of Rs.10,000/-. THE said Nachimuthu Goudner, in turn made over the same to the first defendant on 27.08.1974 on receipt of consideration. On the same day i.e., 27.08.1974, the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into a lease agreement and from the said date, the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property as a lessee and she is entitled to protection as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu cultivating Tenant Protection Act. It is alleged that on 01.01.88 and 08.11.1988, the defendants attempted to interfere with the possession of the suit property and forced her to deliver vacant possession of the suit property, hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) THE first appellate Court considering the oral and documentary evidence, particularly Ex.B20 dated 17.07.1969, usrfructory mortgage executed by second defendant in favour of Nachimuthu Gounder, Ex.B21 dated 27.08.1974, made over executed by Nachimuthu Gounder in favour of the first defendant/4th respondent herein, Ex.B22 dated 27.08.1974, the agreement between 1st defendant/4th respondent herein and the 2nd defendant and found that though Nachimuthu Gounder has made over to the first defendant, the plaintiff has failed to prove that possession was handed over by Nachimuthu Gounder to the first defendant/4th respondent herein who in turn delivered the possession to her and she is in possession of the suit property and allowed the appeal.