KALIYAMURTHY (DECEASED) Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN HIGH SCHOOL, KONDANDAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1999 passed in A. S. No.26 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Mayiladuthurai confirming the judgement and decree passed by the District Munsif, Sirkali in O.S.No.183 of 1990 dated 28.01.1999.

(2.) The respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S. No.183 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif, Sirkali for recovery of possession of the suit " B " schedule property. The learned District Munsif has dismissed the said suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein has filed an Appeal in A.S.No.26 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Mayiladuthurai. The appellants herein have filed cross objection against the findings of the learned District Munsif that they are not owners of the suit " B " schedule property and they are only tenants. The learned Sub-Judge has dismissed both the appeal as well as cross objection. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred the present second appeal.

(3.) The respondent herein has filed a suit stating that the suit " B " schedule property belongs to the school and the appellants herein are tenants and hence the respondent has issued notice terminating the lease and filed a suit for recovery of possession. The appellants herein have taken a stand that they are the owners of the suit " B " schedule property and they are not tenants under the plaintiff. The learned District Munsif has found that the plaintiff is the owner of the land but the superstructure was constructed by the defendants and the land alone was leased out to the defendants. He further found that the lease was not properly terminated, accordingly he dismissed the suit. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court has found that the plaintiff is the owner of both land and superstructure, however confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court on the ground that the lease was not properly terminated. The cross objection filed by the defendants also dismissed by the first appellate court. As against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has not filed any second appeal. However, the defendants have filed the present Second Appeal challenging the findings of the first appellate court.