Madras High Court
S.R.Srinivasan (Died) vs Sri Veeraraghava Swami ... on 31 January, 2022
SA NO.417 OF 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.01.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
SA NO.417 OF 2016
AND CMP NOS.7359 & 12110 OF 2016 & 11853 OF 2017
S.R.Srinivasan (Died)
2.S.Ganesan
3.Chitra
4.S.Seethalakshmi
5.S.S.Ramasubramanian ... Appellants
(Appellants 2 to 5 brought on record as
LRs' of the deceased sole appellant
viz., S.R.Srinivasan vide order dated
08.12.2021 inCMP No.19984/2021 in
SA No.417/2016)
VS.
Sri Veeraraghava Swami Devasthanam
Rep. by C.C.Sampath, Honorary Agent
S/o. Chakrapani Iyengar
No.36, Sannadhi Street,
Tiruvallur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code against the decree and judgment dated 26.11.2015 passed in
A.S.No.14 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Tiruvallur
confirming the decree and judgment dated 14.02.2014 passed in
O.S.No.293 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tiruvallur.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.417 OF 2016
For Appellants : Mr.K.Elangoo
For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Khapali
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Courts below,
the unsuccessful defendant has preferred the above Second Appeal.
2.According to the plaintiff / respondent / temple, they have
leased out the property on a monthly rent of Rs.600/-. The defendant /
tenant committed default from 01.12.2006 to 30.09.2009 for 34 months
to the tune of Rs.20,400/-. Therefore, they have issued a legal notice
dated 24.12.2008 calling upon him to surrender vacant possession by 1st
February 2009. The defendant replied on 28.01.2009 denying the title of
the plaintiff / Devasthanam. Hence, claiming continuation of possession
by the defendant on and after 30.09.2009 as unlawful, the plaintiff filed
a Suit for delivery of vacant possession and damages.
3.In the written statement, the defendant has taken a stand
that the Executive Officer of the plaintiff has entered into a formal
agreement as if the property was owned by the plaintiff and sought for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.417 OF 2016
payment of ground rent. The property described in the agreement and the
Suit property are entirely different and the property under occupation of
the defendant is a Natham poramboke and with a view to grab the
property from the hands of the defendant, they have filed the above Suit.
The defendant has put up a house and living thereon, which is classified
as Natham poramboke. Since the plaintiff is not the owner, the Suit is
liable to be dismissed. The defendant issued suitable reply to the legal
notice issued by the plaintiff and the claim of the plaintiff is false and not
maintainable and the defendant is not liable to pay any amount and the
Suit is not properly valued and it should be dismissed.
4.The Trial Court framed appropriate issues and decreed the
Suit. On appeal by the defendant, the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court was confirmed. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff is before
this Court.
5.Both the learned counsel have consented to argue the
matter on the following substantial question of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.417 OF 2016
"Whether the Courts below are correct in holding
that the appellant's denial of title of the respondent to
the suit property is barred by the principles of estoppels
as contemplated under Section 116 of Indian Evidence
Act? "
6.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
7.It is noted that the relationship between the appellant and
the respondent arose out of an agreement entered into between them. The
jural relationship was landlord and tenant. The factum of jural
relationship was categorically admitted by the appellant as D.W.1 during
his cross examination. He would admit that he has put up a Thatched
Shed on the property leased out to him on a monthly rental basis and he
has paid a sum of Rs.900/- every month. Further, the request to the
landlord to reduce the rental was admitted by him. So from this, it is very
clear that he having admitted the plaintiff as a landlord and paid the
monthly rentals for years together and also sought for reduction of fair
rent, cannot turn around and deny the title of the landlord.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.417 OF 2016
8.It is well settled principle that once a tenant is always a
tenant. Having accepted the plaintiff as a real owner of the property, the
appellant cannot claim that the property belongs to Government and
thereby, he is not liable to pay any rentals. It is also an admitted fact that
the appellant has committed default in payment of rent. The Courts
below have concurrently found that jural relationship is that of landlord
and tenant and that he estopped from questioning the title of the landlord.
The plaintiff has issued notice as per law and that the defendant has
admittedly committed default. Therefore, the decree of delivery of
possession has been suspended along with the direction to pay damages.
I do not find any discrepancy in the order passed by the Courts below as
it is based on sound reasons and the appellant has not made out a case for
the substantial question of law as framed in the Second Appeal.
9.In fine, the Second Appeal merits no consideration and
accordingly, stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
31.01.2022
TK
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.417 OF 2016
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
TK
To
1.The Subordinate Judge
Subordinate Court
Tiruvallur.
2.The District Munsif Court
Tiruvallur.
SA NO.417 OF 2016
31.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
