1976 Supreme(Mad) 523
V.RAMASWAMI
R. Govindaswamy – Appellant
Versus
Bhoopalan and others – Respondent
Advocates:
S. Nainarsundaram, V. Natarajan and V. Nicholas, for Appellant.
O. Radhakrishnan and A. Veerappan, for Respondents.
Judgment:-The first defendant in the suit is the appellant as also the petitioner in the civil revision petition. The respondents filed a suit for a declaration of their title and for recovery of possession. Their case was that the suit site originally belonged to one Subramani, the father of the respondents and after him the site was leased by his wife Amirthammal in favour of the appellant. The lease was stated to be some time in the year 1956 on a monthly rent of Rs. 5. Later on, it is stated that it was increased gradually upto Rs. 20. On the ground that the appellant failed to pay the rent, the respondents issued a notice terminating the tenancy and called upon the appellant to surrender possession. Of course, at the time when the notice was issued, the respondents claimed that the superstructure also was put up by them and it belonged to them. But when they filed the suit, they gave up their claim to the super-structure and contended that they are entitled to recover possession of the vacant site after removal of the superstructure. The appellant’s case was that about 20 years prior to the suit, he purchased the property under an oral sale from Amirthammal and that he was not
Click Here to Read the rest of this document