R SUBRAMANI Vs. NARAYANI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. S. NO. 50 of 2006 has been directed against the Judgment and decree made in A. S. No. 183 of 2003 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai which had arisen out of a decree and Judgment made in O. S. No. 2326 of 1996 on the file of XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. A. S. No. 98 of 2006 has been directed against the Judgment and decree made in A. S. No. 184 of 2003 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai which had arisen out of a decree and Judgment made in O. S. No. 4127 of 1997 on the file of XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) O. S. NO. 2326 of 1996 was filed by one Narayani Ammal, the mother of the defendant R. Subramani, who is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 4127 of 1997 for bare injunction.

(3.) THE short facts of the averments in the plaint in O. S. No. 2326 of 1996 relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows: The plaintiff is in possession and occupation of Plot No. 252 of G. K. M. Colony which is the plaint schedule property from 1971. The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board under the World Bank Scheme of lease-cum-sale agreement allotted the said plot of land in favour of the plaintiff Narayani Ammal as per its proceeding dated 10. 3. 1983 and entered into a lease cum sale agreement with the plaintiff on the same date under which the Board agreed to sell the plot of 194 sq. mtrs to the plaintiff on payment of sale consideration of Rs. 1552/- agreed to be paid in a monthly instalment of Rs. 8/ -. The plaintiff was working as a Corporation teacher since 1959 and retired on 30. 6. 1991 and worked for a further period of one year after superannuation. Her husband died on 26. 8. 1973. The plaintiff Narayani Ammal had paid the entire dues to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board out of her own earnings and savings, the last such payment was made on 18. 10. 1990 and receipts have been issued for the same. Even before the date of sale agreement, there was a hut in the plaint schedule property which was subsequently been removed and a pucca house was put up by the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property in the year 1971 and she is residing therein. The plaintiff had set up a cycle spare parts shop known as "vinayaka Cycle Spares" at cost of Rs. 40,000/- for her son, the defendant herein and had conducted his marriage on 18. 10. 1991. Both the defendant and his wife were trying to force the plaintiff to transfer the property to the defendant. Having failed in their attempt, the defendant had beaten up the plaintiff on 31. 7. 1992, which necessitated the plaintiff to lodge a police complaint on 1. 8. 1992. Before the police, the defendant had agreed to repay the said sum of Rs. 40,000/- in monthly instalments of Rs. 500/- which was followed by a confirmation letter dated 11. 8. 1992. The defendant thereafter paid a sum of Rs. 500/- for three months and thereafter failed to pay the same. The defendant locked up and left the rear portion of the plaint schedule property in October 1992. But in December 1992, the defendant attacked the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff did not let out the portion to a person sent by him and the plaintiff's daughter lodged a complaint dated 8. 12. 1992 in the local police station. Again before the police, the defendant had apologized for his act and gave a letter of undertaking dated 11. 12. 1992. However, the defendant being the son of the plaintiff, the plaintiff allowed the defendant to occupy the said rear portion of the plaint schedule property. In January 1994, the defendant under the pretext of cleaning and white washing the entire suit premises obtained the keys for the front portion and thereafter started using the front portion also. On 22. 6. 1995, when the plaintiff went to the suit premises to pick up some of her house hold articles in the suit premises, the defendant's wife started using abusive language and used their dogs to threaten the plaintiff. Thereafter, with the help of her daughter living opposite to the suit premises managed to enter the premises and took the articles. Thereafter, on 23. 6. 1995, the defendant along with his in laws came to the plaintiff's residence and attacked the plaintiff and went and lodged a complaint with the local police station as if the plaintiff had attacked the defendant and his family. On 24. 6. 1996, the defendant and his in laws attacked the daughter of the plaintiff who is living opposite the suit premises who had helped her mother to go inside the suit premises on 22. 6. 1995 and there after lodged a complaint in the local police station against the daughter of the plaintiff. On enquiry, the police have dropped the complaint. In July 1995, the defendant vacated the said rear portion and only handed over the keys to the front portion of the suit premises and refused to hand over the keys of the rear portion. The defendant had also taken away the various furnitures and articles kept in the front portion of the suit premises along with the ration card. In November 1995, the defendant tried to let out the said rear portion on several occasions but the plaintiff managed to prevent the same on talking to such persons. However, on 20. 1. 1996, the defendant managed to let out the said rear portion to two bachelors. On 23. 1. 1996, the plaintiff came to know about the same through her daughter's family and when she protested to such illegal letting out by the defendant, the defendant started using abusive language against the plaintiff and her daughter. Hence the plaintiff lodged another complaint with the police on 23. 1. 1996. At the instance of the police, the said tenants vacated the rear portion of the suit premises on 31. 1. 1996. The defendant failed to hand over the keys of the rear portion to the plaintiff. Hence the suit for bare injunction.