A MARIAMMAL Vs. S SUDALAIKANNU THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL No.849 of 1992 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9.3.1990 in O.S.No.92 of 1985 and C.R.P.Nos.3294 and 3295 of 1993 are preferred against common judgment and decree dated 4.3.1993 in R.C.A.Nos.44 and 45 of 1990 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.92 of 1985 is as follows: THE suit properties and other properties were purchased by the plaintiff and Ebenesar Ammal by means of a registered sale deed dated 6.5.1955 for Rs.8,500. In the partition that had taken place by means of a registered partition deed, the suit properties were allotted to the plaintiff. THE plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same in her own right by leasing them out to various tenants, including the 8th defendant, who was in occupation of the upstairs on a monthly rent of Rs.500. THE downstairs was leased out to South Eastern Road ways on a monthly rent of Rs.400. THE rents from the tenants were collected by defendants 5 and 6, who are sons of the plaintiff. THE 7th defendant is also the son of the plaintiff. With a view to defraud the plaintiff, defendants 5 to 7 obtained the signature of the plaintiff in a document said to be Power of Attorney, authorising them to collect the rent from the suit properties. Such representation was also made by the husband of the plaintiff to obtain the signature of the plaintiff in the said document. Believing the abovesaid representation, the plaintiff had signed the said document, which was subsequently known in the month of July, 1983, that the said document to be is a partition deed. THEre was no need to partition the suit properties as the said properties were not owned by the plaintiff, her husband and defendants 5 to 7 as their common property. On enquiry it was found that the suit property had been allegedly given to the 5th defendant in the said deed. On the strength of said deed, the 5th defendant had purported to execute several sale deeds to defendants 1 to 4, which are not valid and binding on the plaintiff. THE properties stand only in the name of the plaintiff and they were not transferred to the alleged transferees. THE recitals in the partition deed that the suit properties were enjoyed jointly as joint family properties, cannot be correct since there can be no joint family in the Chiristian community. THErefore, the plaintiff had filed the suit to declare the partition deed dated 18.5.1981 as not valid and not binding on the plaintiff with regard to the suit properties and to set aside the same, for recovery of possession of the suit properties from the defendants 1 to 4 and for costs.

(3.) THE 1st respondent has resisted the petition on the following grounds: This respondent has not executed a valid sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent and, therefore, the sale in favour of the 2nd respondent is void. THE 2nd respondent is not entitled to collect the rent from the petitioner and the petitioner is bound to pay rent only to this respondent since the premises was let out to the petitioner only by this respondent. This respondent alone is entitled to collect the rent as landlord for the premises under the occupation of the petitioner. THEre was no need to deposit the rent in court. It is under the said circumstances, the 1st respondent has sought for the dismissal of the petition.