LAWS(MAD)-2006-7-198

PATTAMMAL Vs. K V RADHAKRISHNAN

Decided On July 13, 2006
PATTAMMAL Appellant
V/S
K.V.RADHAKRISHNAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree passed by learned Principal Subordinate judge, Poonammallee in a. S. No. 71 of 1990, dated 20-3-1991, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Poonammallee, in O. S. No. 217 of 1989, dated 31-1-1990, the second plaintiff has filed the above second appeal.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows : the suit property was purchased by the first plaintiff from Vembuli Naicker and others by executing a sale deed dated 12-9-1940. After the purchase, at the request of palaya Naicker and Kanniappa Naicker, who are the sons of Vembuli Naicker, the first plaintiff leased out the suit property to them for a period of two years and for the rent of 5 annas per month by executing a lease deed dated 14-9-1940. However, as the said palaya Naicker and Kanniappa Naicker surrendered the suit property before the completion of the lease period, at the request of the first defendant Kannammal, who is the wife of Gengappa Naicker, leased out the suit property to her for a monthly rent of 8 annas per month and the first defendant did not pay the rent for about four years. While so, the first plaintiff was shocked to receive summons in O. S. No. 742 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif Court, poonammallee, which was filed by the first and second defendants for the relief of permanent injunction. The first plaintiff did not express any objection for granting injunction. In the reply sent by the advocate for the defendants, the tenancy of the first defendant was repudiated and title was set up by the defendants and therefore, the first plaintiff issued a notice under Section 111 (g)of the Transfer of Property Act forfeiting the tenancy. Having regard to the denial of the title of the first plaintiff to the suit properly, he filed the above suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the suit property.

(3.) DENYING the averments made in the plaint, the defendants have filed their written statement.