AROKIYA MARIE LEMOAN Vs. FRANCLIN MARIE LOUIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal with chequered history is a classic case to understand how the Courts below in their zealous to dispose of the case, are carried away by the compromise memos filed by the counsel, pass judgment without adhering to mandate of Order 23, Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code and thereafter, to justify their action as well as the counsel's action whom they trust and act, refuse to undo the wrong, despite pointing out by the affected party.

(2.) The suit is for delivery of vacant possession after removing the superstructure put up by the defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was let out to the defendant by their mother Santhanamary Franclin on 01.01.1977. After the demise of Santhanamary in the year 1979, the suit property devolved to plaintiffs. The defendant continue to be the tenancy by executing lease deed in favour of the plaintiffs. As per the lease deed dated 10.01.1984, the rent was enhanced to Rs.50/-. The defendant agreed to vacate the premises on six months notice or in case of default of rent continueously for six months. There was default in rent, hence, a lawyer notice dated 26.09.1989 was issued. Since the defendant failed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession, the original suit came to be filed.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit denying landlord tenant relationship. Claiming that she is in possession of the property since 1957 uninterruptedly for more than 30 years, she claims to have prescribed title over the property. Further, challenged the suit as bad for want of pre-suit notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and for improper description of the suit property.