STELLA MERCY BAL Vs. S MAHADEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant in the suit in O.S.No.83 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif - cum -Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel is the appellant in this second appeal. The first respondent in this appeal filed a suit in O.S.No.83 of 2001 for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property which is described as land and building bearing door No.13-49 of Aathivillai town panchayat comprised in R.S.No. 139/14.

(2.) The case of the first respondent in the suit are as follows: The suit property originally belonged to the defendants who are husband and wife. They sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 11.08.1999. Pursuant to the sale deed, patta was also changed in the name of the plaintiff and he is remitting the tax in his name. Since the defendants could not find suitable accommodation to shift their residence they entered into a tenancy agreement with the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property as a tenant. The tenancy agreement is dated 11.08.1999 and it is for a period of 11 months and the rent payable is Rs.1,000/-per month. However after the expiry of the period of 11 months, the defendants have not vacated the building, on the pretext that they could not find alternate accommodation. Therefore the plaintiff sent a registered notice to the defendants on 23.05.2001 to surrender the vacant possession of the suit property after tenancy.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants and a detailed written statement was filed by the first defendant. It is the case of the defendants that the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- and the understanding between the parties was that the plaintiff would settle the dispute with one P.Anandlal who had earlier paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendants and that the defendants would retain the possession until the amount is fully settled to the said P.Anandlal. It is further stated that though the sale deed was executed, possession was retained by the defendants only in view of the arrangement between the plaintiff and the defandants. The defendants specifically denied the tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendants and that their possession was stated only pursuant to the understanding pleaded by them. It was also stated in the written statement that the defendants did not execute any tenancy agreement and that even if any such document is produced by the plaintiff must may be a fabricated document and it was obtained by mis-representation. The trial court dismissed the suit after holding that the sale in favour of the plaintiff is not a bonafide transaction, since the sale deed was not produced before the Court. The trial Court further held that the tenancy alleged by the plaintiff is also not proved. From the reading of the entire judgment, it can be seen that the findings of the trial court are contrary to the pleadings of the respective parties and the candid admission of the defendants as to the genuineness of the transaction by which the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from the defendants.