Bala Sundari vs A.Parameswaran
2021 Latest Caselaw 17983 Mad

                                                                                  S.A(MD).No.901 of 2014

                                   BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                      DATED: 02.09.2021

                                                              CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                                    S.A(MD).No.901 of 2014

                      Bala Sundari                                              ... Appellant

                                                               Vs

                     A.Parameswaran                                              ... Respondent

                     Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
                     against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2013 made in A.S.No.33 of
                     2013 and I.A.No.351 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Court,
                     Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2011 made in
                     O.S.No.590 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court,
                     Nagercoil.


                                              For Appellant      : Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass
                                              For Respondent : Mr. T.Lajapathy Roy

                                                         JUDGEMENT

The defendant in O.S.No.590 of 2008, on the file of the I-Additional

District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, is the appellant in this second appeal. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD).No.901 of 2014

respondent herein filed the said suit for directing the appellant to vacate and

hand over the vacant possession of the suit property. The case of the

respondent is that the suit property belonged to his father and that it was let

out on monthly rent of Rs.150% to the appellant in the year 1990. The rent

was enhanced to Rs.300/- in the year 1994. The appellant's father had

passed away subsequently. The appellant was paying the rent regularly till

March 2008. From April 2008, the appellant committed default. The

respondent issued Ex.A3 notice, dated 16.09.2008 calling upon the

appellant to terminate the tenancy. The said notice was received by the

appellant, but the appellant did not comply with the demand set out therein.

After the expiry of the notice period, the suit came to be filed. The

defendant filed a written statement controverting the plaint averments. He

also raised a counter claim that he had perfected his title by adverse

possession.

2.Based on the divergent pleadings, the trial Court framed the

necessary issues. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one kumar as

P.W.2. Exs. A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. The appellant did not adduce any

evidence on his side. He did not even enter the witness box. The trial Court,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD).No.901 of 2014

by judgment and decree, dated 26.04.2011 decreed the suit as prayed for and

dismissed the counter claim. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed

A.S.No.33 of 2013 before the II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. The First

Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment and decree, dated 09.10.2013,

dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the trial Court.

Challenging the same, the Second Appeal came to be filed.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

4.The plaintiff, by marking Exs.A1 & A2, had established that he is

the owner of the suit property. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the

defendant's father was originally inducted as a tenant and following his

demise, the defendant continued to be in possession of the property in the

very same capacity. The defendant, of course, had raised the plea of adverse

possession. But he did not adduce even a piece of evidence to establish the

same. No witnesses were examined on the side of the defendant. The

defendant himself avoided the witness box. No document whatsoever was

marked on his side. The Courts below had rightly held that the plaintiff had

made out a case for grant of relief. No substantial question of law arises for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD).No.901 of 2014

consideration in this appeal. There is no merit in the second appeal.

Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment

and decree are confirmed. No Costs.

02.09.2021

Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/No kmm

Note:- In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To

1.The I Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

2.The II-Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil.

Copy to:

The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD).No.901 of 2014

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.,

kmm

S.A(MD).No.901 of 2014

02.09.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis