VIJAY Vs. N DAKSHINAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant and the suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he is absolutely entitled to the suit properties, for recovery of possession and also for mesne profits.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff, as projected in the plaint, is as follows :

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the suit property belonged to the defendant. It is also admitted that he had executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughter Anandhi on 28.02002. However, the same was not acted upon, as his daughter Anandhi herself did not know about the execution of the settlement deed. During her lifetime, the said Anandhi had never accepted the settlement deed nor acted upon the same. The defendant further denied the fact that the buildings on the suit property were constructed by Arulraj, husband of Anandhi. It is also denied that after the death of Anandhi on 27.07.2005, the property automatically devolved upon her husband Arulraj. The said Arulraj never let the shops for rent or collected rents from the same. The suit property had a total extent of 0.65 cents, of which, there are shops in an extent of 0.15 cents of land and the rest of the land, i.e., 0.50 cents is lying vacant. The plaintiff had deliberately omitted the shop portion and had filed the suit only for the landed portion in order to avoid payment of court fees. It is the specific case of the defendant that the shops were constructed only by him and he had inducted the tenants. For the construction of the shops, he had also borrowed loan from the Land Development Bank. The defendant, being the owner of the property, had never handed over the possession to the settlee and he had been in continuous possession of the same, after the death of Anandhi. The defendant had also cancelled the settlement deed on 04.09.2006. Thus, the defendant, who is admittedly the owner of the property, had sought for the dismissal of the suit.