A SHAMEEM BEGUM Vs. M KUTHURATHULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2017 made in A.S.No.248 of 2016 on the file of the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2016 made in O.S.No.6336 of 2013 on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) The appellants are defendants and respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.6336 of 2013 on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondent filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering and disturbing the respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, viz., land and building, except under due process of law.

(3.) According to the respondent, he has taken the suit property on usufructory mortgage under Othy Agreement dated 05.09.1996 from the original owners viz., M.A.B. Md.Ameenuddin and M.A.B. Md.Sulthan Mohideen, for 15 years. As per Othy Agreement, the respondent paid an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- and has put up superstructure and also spent Rs.5,00,000/- for repair and maintenance of the suit property. The respondent obtained necessary permission from the Corporation of Chennai and other authorities for carrying on business in the suit property. The superstructure put up by him was assessed for the property tax and other statutory dues by other authorities. The appellants threatened the respondent to vacate the suit property. The respondent filed O.S.No.5510 of 2011 against the original mortgagors viz., M.A.B. Md.Ameenuddin and M.A.B. Md.Sulthan Mohideen, on the file of the XVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for permanent injunction. The respondent withdrew the said suit as original mortgagors, the defendants therein died and application filed for impleading the legal heirs of the original mortgagors was dismissed. The appellants issued notice dated 03.09.2012 through their advocate calling upon the respondent to receive the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and vacate the suit building. The respondent sent reply dated 12.09.2012 calling upon the appellants to pay additional sum of Rs.10,00,000/- spent by him for putting up superstructure and for repair and maintenance of the suit property. On 09.11.2013, the second appellant came to the suit property and demanded the respondent to vacate the suit property and threatened him. Hence, the respondent has come out with the suit for the relief stated above.