RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. VETRI VELAYUTHASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit on the small causes jurisdiction was filed before the learned District Munsif, Mayiladudurai to recover a sum of Rs.197.55 representing the rent due for the land in question. The suit was decreed. Hence the defendant is before this Court in this revision.

(2.) I heard Mr.S.Soundhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. On facts, the learned trial Judge found that there exists a relationship of landlord-tenant between the predecessors in interest for the parties before the lower court, who are now before this Court and it continued even thereafter. The case of the tenant that the tenancy is in existence for well over 30 years; no rents whatsoever were collected and therefore he perfected his title by adverse possession, was not accepted. Therefore, when this finding is based on evidence and appreciation of the materials placed before the court, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the said finding and interfere in this revision. Ofcourse, one another point of importance had been raised before the lower court in the written statement filed, relying upon Art.8 to Schedule 2 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. There is no material available in the order of the lower court as to whether the above referred to point was argued or not. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner argued this point; it having been raised as a defence in the written statement and it being a pure question of law, I allowed the revision petitioner to advance arguments on that.