MOHAMMED ABDULLA Vs. SAHARAN BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the defendants, Mohammed abdulla and Mohammed Yusuf, both sons of Haji Y. S. Mohammed Sheriff Rowther, against the judgment and decree dated 24th day of August, 1979 in O. S. No. 149 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, decreeing the suit for declaring the title of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and for possession and future mesne profits with pro-costs and also disallowing the plaintiffs'claim for past mesne profits. The lower Court also directed the quantum of future mesne profits to be determined in a separate proceeding under order 20, rule 12, C. P. C.

(2.) THE suit was laid with the following allegations by saharan Beevi, Minor Mumtaj Begum and Haji Y. S. Mohammed Sheriff Rowther, the next friend of minor second plaintiff herein: THE third plaintiff Hajiy. S. Mohammed Sheriff Rowthar, who was the original owner of the suit property has validly gifted the suit property to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 by means of registered settlement deeds dated 22. 5. 1978. By virtue of the said settlements, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have become the absolute owners of the suit property. Panchayat Registry has been transferred in the name of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and they are paying taxes. THE defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of the third plaintiff through his first wife, while the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the daughters of the third plaintiff through his second wife. THE defendants 1 and 2 have been living separately from the third plaintiff and were having separate earnings and acquisitions. THE suit house was let out to one Mohammed Mohideen by the third plaintiff. He vacated the said house in 1975. THEn the first defendant took possession of the suit house as a lessee agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 100. It was agreed that the rent of the suit house was to be adjusted in the business dealings the third plaintiff had with the first defendant. It was also agreed that the Panchayat tax was also to be adjusted towards the rent. THE third plaintiff had attorned the tenancy to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and hence they are entitled to collect the rent from the defendants from June, 1978. A sum of Rs. 400 was due from the defendants to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 from June, 1978 to September, 1978, as rent or damage for use and occupation. THE defendants appear to have been upset by the gift of the suit house to the plaintiffs 1 and 2. THEy defaulted in payment of rent which necessitated the issue of notice to the first defendant for which he sent a reply with false and untenable contentions. In view of the hostile title set up by the defendants in the reply notice, it has become necessary to file this suit for declaration of title and possession with mesne profits.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the above decision of the lower Court, the defendants 1 and 2, viz. , Mohammed Abdullah and Mohammed Yusuff, have come forward with this appeal inter alia contending that the learned Subordinate judge erred in rejecting the evidence of D. W. 2 and D. W. 4 merely on the ground that they are close relations of the appellants herein. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants herein, the lower court failed to see that the appellants have proved the oral gift of the suit property in their favour by sufficient and acceptable evidence. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned Subordinate Judge erred in granting a decree for future mesne profits. It is contended on behalf of the appellants by the learned counsel for the appellants that the lower court had given reasons in support of its decision which are incorrect and untenable.