MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. RAMAIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant in the second appeal. The plaintiff filed suit for possession.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the plaintiff -s paternal uncle. He went abroad and returned to India in 1996. He got married in 1970. He requested the plaintiff to permit him to occupy the house bearing door No.93, Masthanapalli Street, Karaikal belonging to him. Sri Kailasanathaswamy Sri Nityakalyanaperumal Vagayara Devasthanam, Karaikal is the owner of the site. In 1970, the plaintiff was unmarried. Hence he permitted the defendant to live in the suit house. The plaintiff lived with his brother in Door No.94, Masthan Palli Street, Karaikkal. The defendant agreed to vacate the house whenever requested. In 1979, the plaintiff got married and hence he wanted to vacate the house. As the defendant refused he sent a notice on 31.10.1981. But the defendant sent a reply with untenable contentions. Hence the suit for possession and mesne profits.

(3.) THE trail court has framed as many as eight issues. The trial court found that the plaintiff was paying the rent for the house site and that there was no clear proof that the transferee of lease was binding on the defendant. It has also found that the plaintiff did not give permission to the defendant. Further, it held that mere transfer of lease in the name of the plaintiff or the payment of rent would not be sufficient to vacate the defendant, who had l/3rd interest in the property.