MANI MUTHU Vs. DURAI PANDI NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the submissions made by Mr. T. S. R. Venkataramana, learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) THE defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for declaration in respect of "a" schedule property and for recovery of possession in respect of "b" schedule property. Admittedly "a" schedule property comprised "b" schedule property in itself. It was the case of the respondent herein as plaintiff before the trial court that the entire property described as "a" schedule property comprised in S. No. 953/1a1b (part) having an extent of 1 acre and 7 1/4 cents belongs to him by virtue of purchase made under Ex. A1, dated 25. 11. 1988. The said property was purchased by him from Lourdousamy Nadar, Lourdou Mariyan Nadar and Anthony. The total extent of S. No. 953/1a1b was 1. 43 acres. The appellant/defendant had purchased 36 cents out of the above said total extent under the sale deed, dated 25. 4. 1986 marked as Ex. B1. Claiming that the respondent/plaintiff purchased 1 acre 7 1/4 cents within the specific boundaries described as the first item of the suit properties and constructed a house in a portion of the said property which is described as second item of the suit properties. Thus the respondent/plaintiff had laid a suit for declaration of his title in respect of the entire property shown as the first item of the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the second item of suit properties. According to the plaint averments, the second item of suit properties was let out to the appellant/defendant for a monthly rent of Rs. 100/ -. But the tenancy came to be terminated by an operation of law as the appellant/defendant chose to deny the title of the respondent/plaintiff and set up title in himself in respect of the second item of the suit properties.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant on the following grounds: 1) The plaintiff having purchased only a share in the common property cannot got a declaration of a specified portion; 2) In respect of the suit second item, the appellant/defendant was never a tenant under the respondent/plaintiff; 3) The house in the second item of suit property was constructed by the appellant/defendant; And 4) Having taken a stand that the appellant/defendant was a tenant, the suit filed without issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 so far as the second item of the suit property is concerned is not maintainable. Based on the above said contentions, the appellant/defendant wanted the dismissal of the suit with costs.