L. VENKATRAMAN Vs. NARASUS COFFEE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the fair and decreetal order dated 26.03.2009, passed in I.A. No.1278 of 2008, in O.S. No.143 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Salem, the plaintiff has come forward with the First Appeal.

(2.) Petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) The case of the petitioner/defendant in brief is that the petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the respondent/plaintiff has laid the suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that he has perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession as though it was entrusted to him for putting up a superstructure and the claim of the respondent/plaintiff cannot be entertained because huge fraud has been played on the Court by suppressing the real fact that the suit property was taken on lease from the petitioner's firm by the respondent/plaintiff and the lease deed was registered on the file of the office of the Sub Registrar, Salem and the respondent/plaintiff is paying the lease amount and there is a clause in the lease agreement for renewal after the particular period and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff as lessee can never claim ownership and once he is a tenant, he is always a tenant and the claim of the respondent/plaintiff is also barred under the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act and he is estopped from claiming title and the petitioner firm wrote a letter to the respondent/plaintiff asking for certain documents, vide reply dated 07.09.2007, the respondent/plaintiff sent two documents including two lease agreements dated 07.02.2005 and 06.09.2005 and the abovesaid lease agreement would indicate that the respondent/plaintiff is in the possession of the suit property under the lease agreement and at no point of time had denied the title of the petitioner. However, the property is now worth more crores of rupees and the respondent/plaintiff is adopting fraudulent methods to get the property belonging to the petitioner's firm and hence, the claim of the respondent/plaintiff that he is entitled to the suit property by adverse possession is false and on the abovesaid score alone, the respondent/plaintiff's suit is not maintainable and hence, the plaint has to be rejected at the threshold and hence the petition.