GNANAMUTHU Vs. MOST REV. JUSTIN DIRAVIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from one Miss. Stazza on 26th January, 1970. At that time the defendant was in occupation of the property as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 25. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the property and as he did not do so, a registered notice was sent to him. But it was returned with the endorsement 'Not found'. The plaintiff thereafter sent a telegram on 30th July, 1970 running as follows:

(2.) THE defendant in his written statement pointed out that the description of the property given in the plaint as Door No. 40 was wrong, that he had put up a superstructure at a cost of Rs. 3,500 and planted some trees and that he was not aware of the purchase by the plaintiff. He denied having returned any registered notice and according to him, the telegram, did not satisfy the mandatory statutory provisions. It was contended that the suit was not maintainable in law.

(3.) THERE was an appeal by the defendant and the learned Subordinate Judge framed two points for determination viz., whether the plaintiff was entitled for recovery of possession of the suit property and whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for use and occupation. He held that the plaintiff had title to the suit property and that he was entitled to damages for use and occupation. The unsuccessful defendant has appealed.