Madras High Court
Prof.Dr.D.Purushothaman vs T.T.Bhoopalan on 26 June, 2025
A.S.No.600 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
AS No. 600 of 2019
Prof.Dr.D.Purushothaman
Principal of Law College (Retd.)
S/o.Deivasigamani,
No.63/80, T.V.S. Nagar, 5th Street,
Padi, Chennai-600050
Appellant(s)/Plaintiff(s)
Vs
T.T.Bhoopalan
S/o.T.P.Thiagarajan,
New No.24, Old No.135, Corner House, Ground Floor,
4th Street, Karpagam Avenue, R.A.Puram,
Chennai-600028
Respondent(s)/Defendant(s)
First Appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 96 of the
CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2019 passed in
O.S.No.350 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional District Court,
Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
For Appellant(s): Mr.T.Ayyasamy
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:32 pm )
A.S.No.600 of 2019
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Venkatesan
JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the present first appeal
challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2019 passed in
O.S.No.350 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional District Court,
Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial
Court.
3. Suit is filed for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to
remove the old furniture viz. two cots and two chairs abandoned by the
defendant in the suit property or alternative decree of recover of possession
and for recovery of Rs.9,88,600/- towards damages for use and occupation
with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
4. The trial Court decreed the suit in part by granting mandatory
injunction directing the defendant to remove the old furniture viz. two cots
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:32 pm )
and two chairs from the suit property and dismissed the suit for damages
for use and occupation.
5. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and his wife
A.Vanaja is employed in Tamil Nadu Metro Water and the defendant is her
colleague. When the plaintiff was constructing a building, the defendant
advanced a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- without interest in the year 2013. After
completion of construction in the year 2014, the defendant wanted a portion
of the building for his residential purpose. Considering the long-term
friendship and timely help of the defendant by advancing the loan amount,
the plaintiff allowed the defendant to occupy the suit property in June 2014.
The possession of the suit property by the defendant was a permissive one
and no rent was collected. The plaintiff had paid a part sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
towards the loan amount in December 2014 and the balance amount of
Rs.6,00,000/- was repaid in July 2015. However, contrary to the
understanding, the defendant did not vacate the suit property and hence, the
the plaintiff approached the mediators in August 2015 and in their presence,
the defendant agreed to vacate the suit property, but, the defendant failed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:32 pm )
do the same. Thereafter, the defendant issued a legal notice dated
19.10.2016 stating that he had spend a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the
construction of second floor and interior work and demanded the plaintiff to
pay the said amount. While so, the defendant vacated the premises by
handing over the keys to the plaintiff, but, kept two old damaged chairs and
two old wooden cots. Subsequently, the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.141
of 2018 for permanent injunction and for refund of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence the
suit.
6. The defendant remained ex parte in the suit proceedings.
7. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as
PW1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked.
Findings of the trial Court:
8. When the plaintiff contends that the defendant has already
handed over the keys, then, in such context, recovery of possession is found
to be contrary to the facts narrated by the plaintiff. Similarly, when the
plaintiff contends that the defendant was permitted to be in the suit premises
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:32 pm )
free of rent, then, in such case, the claim for damages for use and occupation
of suit premises, is also found to be in contrary and further more, the
plaintiff is found to have computed the monthly rent on assumption. Hence,
the trial Court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of
possession or damages for use and occupation, but, entitled for mandatory
injunction.
9. The point for determination that arises in this appeal is whether
the plaintiff is entitled for damages for use and occupation for a sum of
Rs.9,88,600/-?
10. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit
that though the plaintiff has given up his claim against damages for use and
occupation till the date of repayment of the loan in July 2015, the
respondent/defendant is liable to pay damages for use and occupation after
the date of repayment of the loan. The payment made by the plaintiff
towards electricity charges has not been taken into account by the trial
Court. The trial Court, while rightly decreeing the suit for the main relief for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:32 pm )
mandatory injunction, has committed an error of law by dismissing the suit
in respect of granting damages for use and occupation.
11. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 03.05.1995
stands in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the legal notice issued by the
defendant to the plaintiff dated 19.10.2016, wherein, the defendant states
that he had advanced an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- for completing the
construction of the suit schedule building. It is also stated that he has spent
more than Rs.5,00,000/- for finishing the second floor and for interior works
and it is further stated that during July 2015, the plaintiff returned a sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- and informed that the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- will be
considered as a interest free loan till he occupies the house and the same
will be returned once he vacates the house. Further, it is stated that the
plaintiff was called upon to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and on
receipt of the same, the defendant will vacate the premises and hand over
the possession on the date and time fixed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has
not filed any documents to show that he had paid electricity charges and the
calculation pertains to the damages for use and occupation of the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:32 pm )
schedule property.
12. Ex.A3 is the reply notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant
dated 01.02.2018, wherein, it has been stated that during the month of June
2017, the defendant vacated the portion of the house and handed over the
keys to the plaintiff and claimed to withdraw the notice dated 19.10.2016. It
is to be noted that in the reply notice in Ex.A3, there is no demand made for
claiming damages for use and occupation.
13. Ex.A6 is a photocopy of the plaint in O.S.No.141 of 2018
pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee. The
respondent/defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.141 of 2018 against the
plaintiff and his wife Vanaja seeking the relief of permanent injunction and
for refund of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is seen from the records that the suit
schedule property mentioned in O.S.No.141 of 2018 is the subject matter in
this appeal. It is also stated that the defendant, in the month of June 2017,
has vacated and handed over the keys, but, kept the damaged and old
wooden cots and chairs in the suit schedule property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:32 pm )
14. When the plaintiff himself admits that the defendant had
already vacated the premises and handed over the keys, then, the question of
recovery of possession does not arise. It is also stated in the plaint in Ex.A6
that the defendant was permitted to occupy the suit premises, and that too,
free of rent, then, the question of claiming damages for use and occupation
of the suit schedule property does not arise. Hence, the trial Court has
rightly returned a finding that claiming damages for use and occupation
does not arise since the defendant was permitted to be in the suit schedule
property free of rent.
15. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds no reason
to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, insofar as,
dismissing the claim of recovery of a sum of Rs.9,88,600/- towards damages
for use and occupation of the suit schedule property. The point is answered
accordingly.
In the result, the First Appeal is dismissed by confirming the
judgment and decree dated 01.07.2019 passed in O.S.No.350 of 2018 on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:32 pm )
file of the III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee. No costs.
26.06.2025
nsd
Index:Yes
Speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:32 pm )
To
The III Additional District Judge,
Tiruvallur at Poonamallee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:32 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
nsd
26.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:34:32 pm )
