JOHN BRITTO Vs. MARIE CLARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.2.1998 in A.S.No.27 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, remanding O.S.No.67 of 1990 for a second time to the trial court for fresh trial. The circumstance which gave rise to the filing of this civil miscellaneous appeal may be stated thus:The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit O.S.No.67 of 1990 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikkal for a declaration of his title to the suit property, for direction the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit property and to pay future damages at the rate of Rs.10 per month and for costs. The appellant/plaintiff claimed title to the suit property as a purchaser under the document Ex.A-1 dated 8.2.1988 from one Earnest Mariyanayagam alias Aruldass Carasse. The said Mariyanayagam got the property by virtue of the settlement deed Ex.A-2 dated 18.5.1981 executed by his mother Claris alias Margueritte, wife of Aruldass Carassee and from that time, he became the owner, While so, the defendant claimed title to the suit property and trespassed into the same, which compelled the plaintiff to file the suit.

(2.) THE defendant resisted the suit on several grounds inter alia contending that the mother of the vendor herself has no title to the suit property and no valid title has been conveyed to the plaintiff's vendor. Till 1975 the suit property was occupied by the defendant's mother-in-law and after her death, the defendant continued to live in the suit property. During 1986, one Mary THErasa issued a reply notice to the notice of the defendant stating that Claris, the daughter of Mary THErasa had leased the suit property to the defendant and the notice sent by the plaintiff on 10.6.1988 contained different facts.

(3.) THE attention of this Court is invited to the following three decisions: