(1.) THE Plaintiff, who succeeded before the trial court, but lost his case before lower appellate court, is the appellant in this second appeal.
(2.) THE appellant herein filed the suit in OS.No.855/1985, before the District Munsif, Tirukovilur, for eviction against the 1st respondent herein. In the said suit, the 1st respondent filed a Written Statement denying the title of the appellant herein and stated that he was the tenant under the 2nd respondent herein and thereafter, the 2nd respondent herein came to be impleaded in the said suit and the said suit was decreed by the trial court. THE appeal filed as against the same in AS.No.76/1993 before the Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, by the 2nd respondent alone was allowed, setting aside the judgement and decree of the trial court and no first appeal has been filed by the 1st respondent herein. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the lower appellate court, this second appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff.
(3.) THE trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found that the 1st respondent herein was the tenant under the appellant that the patta was issued by the Revenue Authority concerned in favour of the appellant in respect of the vacant land, where he constructed a building that thereafter he leased out the same to the 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent has no right in the suit property that both the respondents neither let in any oral evidence nor marked any documents to prove their claim in the suit property that the appellant admitted that he did sign as a witness in the will dated 29.11.1971 executed by his mother in favour of the 2nd respondent and hence, the said Will is a genuine one, but the validity of the same could not be decided, since it was not produced that the 1st respondent was liable to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.1,540/- to the appellant herein that in view of the fact that the appellant had constructed a superstructure, he was entitled to seek the relief of recovery of possession from the 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent had not proved that he leased out the suit property to the 1st respondent or received the rent from him that the properties covered under the will was unable to be ascertained and ultimately, decreed the suit.