P V G PATRUDU Vs. C P RAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 25.10.2007, made in A.S.No.470 of 2007, on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 21.07.2007, made in O.S.No.3818 of 2006, on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal are referred to as they have been arrayed in the original suit in O.S.No.3818 of 2006.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the defendant, it is stated as follows: The averments and allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint filed by him, in the suit O.S.No.3818 of 2006, are denied. The plaintiff had got the suit property from Pachaiyappa's Trust without proper sanction from the Trust and from the Court. The defendant was given the property not on lease and licence basis, but on a monthly rent of Rs.6750/- and on payment of an advance of Rs.65,000/-. The defendant had also paid huge amounts of money to the plaintiff. The suit property was given to the defendant by the arrangements made through Prabhakaran. The property was given by the plaintiff to the defendant only on lease, as it is seen from the rental receipts issued to the defendant. The defendant had never requested that the lease should be only upto March, 1998 as alleged by the plaintiff. Further, the defendant had not made a request to grant time till December, 2002, as claimed by the plaintiff. It is the defendant who had spent huge amounts of money for maintaining the property and for providing the amenities therein. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as the Court before which it has been filed has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Further, no cause of action has arisen for filing the suit as claimed by the plaintiff.