S SAMY Vs. VALLIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. THE respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.256 of 1989 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Udumalpet, for recovery of possession and for rent. THE learned District Munsif by decree and judgment dated 12.07.1995, dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the respondent/plaintiff filed A.S.No.75 of 1996 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet. THE learned Subordinate Judge, by decree and judgment dated 05.10.1999, allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court. THE First Appellate Court granted three months time for the appellant/defendant to hand over possession to the respondent/plaintiff and in respect of the arrears of rent, the First Appellate Court gave liberty to the respondent/plaintiff to approach the trial Court to withdraw the rent which was deposited during trial of the case. Challenging the same, the appellant/defendant has come forward with this second appeal.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, in the judgment, the appellant shall be referred to as the defendant and the respondent as the plaintiff.

(3.) BASED on the above pleading, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, one Natrayan was examined as P.W.1. On the side of the defendant, he was examined as D.W.1. On the side of the plaintiff as many as eight documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.8 and on the side of the defendant, three documents were marked as Exs.B.1 to B. 3. Considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit however, the First Appellate Court has reversed the same. It is the said decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court which is under challenge in this second appeal.