KALIYAPERUMAL Vs. PUDUPETTAI CHOKKANATHASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the petitioners in both the revisions, which are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O. S. No. 471 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Panrutti for possession of the suit property and also for recovery of damages.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiffs that the first plaintiff Pudupettai Chokanatha Swami Annathana Sathiram by its power agent N. Subramania Chettiar who subsequently died, is the owner and the defendant's father was the tenant and after his death, defendants 1 and 2 have continued under a oral lease. Since then there was arrears of rent, notice was issued for the purpose of recovery of possession and the suit for possession was filed.

(3.) THE defendants have also filed the written statement, of course questioning the validity of the notice given under Section 106 of the Transfer Property Act apart from many other defences. After the death of the said Subramania Chettiar, the second plaintiff, who is the second respondent in the revision S. Arunachalam has filed I. A. No. 388 of 2003 to implead him to represent the plaintiff Chatram as one of the trustees stating that pending trial Subramania Chettiar, who is the father of the party sought to implead died on 27. 02. 2003 and on 16. 03. 2003 the plaintiff Annathana Sathiram has convened a meeting of Pudupettai Kovil Palayam Street residence and unanimously selected him as the trustee of Annathana Sathiram in the place of his deceased father Subramaniya Chettiar. The said application for impleading was allowed by the Trial Court on 23. 06. 2003.