A A ABDUL JABBAR Vs. PRASAD ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2000 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, in A.S.No.152 of 1999, confirming the common judgment and decree dated 12.7.1999 passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Salem, in O.S.No.1052 of 1994. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

(2.) A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal, would run thus: (a) The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.1052 of 1994 as against the defendants, seeking permanent injunction, as as to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the goods stocked in the shops 9, 10 and 11 at Divya Towers, as against which, the defendants filed the written statement and resisted the suit. (b) During enquiry, the trial Court framed the relevant issues. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 along with one C.Muthukumar as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A.8 were marked. One Madra Devi was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked. Exs.C1 to C3 were marked as Court documents. (c) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the defendant filed the A.S.No.152 of 1999, for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. (d) Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, this second appeal has been focussed by the plaintiff on various grounds suggesting the following substantial questions of law, which are extracted here under: a) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in their construction of Ex.A1-Lease Deed? b) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in their interpretation of Section 108(c) and (o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? c) When the tenant is entitled to use the leased premises within the four boundaries given in the lease deed, whether the Courts below are justified in law in holding that '7' feet frontage, situate within four boundaries, does not form part of the lease hold premises?" (extract as found in the memorandum of second appeal)

(3.) THE first defendant/landlord entered appearance and resisted the suit by pointing out that the averments and the prayer in the plaint were couched in such a language that they were capable of hiding their agenda behind it in fact the plaintiff wanted to store and pileup his goods on the corridor, which he was not expected to do as per clause-4 of the agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant. Accordingly, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.