PETCHIMUTHU ALIAS MANI Vs. ANITHA SRUTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.2008 passed in A.S. No. 557 of 2007 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.7.2007 made in O.S. No. 497 of 2003 on the file of XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The defendant is the appellant.

(2.) THE respondent herein filed the suit seeking for judgment and decree directing the defendant to hand over possession of the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff and for directing the defendant to return the original parent title deeds of the suit property to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that she purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 12.6.2002 from M/s. Crescent Agencies and she has been in possession of the property by paying taxes and was running a men's hair cutting saloon in the suit property for more than a year and the defendant who was a regular customer was asking the plaintiff to let out the said premises to him on rent and the plaintiff refused to do so and she closed the saloon in August 2002 and was looking out for a good tenant for the suit property and on 2.10.2002, she came to Madras from Bangalore to negotiate a tenancy and after negotiation, she had gone to Airport to Board the flight to Bangalore and she was forcibly taken to the Office of the Commissioner of Police and her signatures were obtained on some blank papers in the presence of the defendant and his associates in the Commissioner's Office and she returned to Bangalore. It is further stated by the plaintiff that on 6.10.2002 through her relative from Chennai, she came to know that on 3.10.2002 the defendant with the help of the Police Officers broke open the lock of the property and took illegal and forcible possession of the suit property at 8.30 pm in the night and the defendant also put up a board M/s. Pichamuthu Travels on the suit property. The plaintiff has further stated that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same till 3.10.2002 when the defendant broke open the lock and took illegal and forcible possession of the suit property and she has not executed any document for handing over possession of the suit property or leasing out the same to the defendant and she filed the suit seeking re-possession of the suit property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

(3.) THE plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and documents in Exs. A1 to A5 were marked on her side and the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and examined D.W.2 and marked Exs. B1 and B4 on his side. The Trial Court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant since she was illegally dispossessed and the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of direction to the defendant to return the documents and granted decree accordingly. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant preferred appeal and the lower appellate Court dismissed the same by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the defendant has preferred the present second appeal. For the sake of convenience, in this Judgment, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.