Issue of deficit court fee not to be raised at appellate stage.

D.MURUGESAN, J.

All these appeals arise from the common judgment dated 08.06.1998 made in C.S.Nos.866 of 1994, 485 of 1997 and 1505 of 1995.

2. For the purpose of convenience, Smt.Srividya will be referred to as "the plaintiff" and Mr.George Thomas will be referred to as "the defendant" and the Tax Recovery Officer IV, Madras - 34 will be referred to as the "second defendant".

3. The facts leading to the filing of C.S.No.866 of 1994 and as pleaded in the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff by name Smt.Srividya is a film artist. She married the defendant on 19.01.1978. Out of her earnings as an actress in films, she purchased a vacant land at No.7, Narayanan Street, Mahalingapuram, Madras 600 034 to an extent of two grounds and 1964 sq.ft., from one Mrs.R.M.Sarojini by a registered sale deed dated 21.04.1983. After obtaining permission from the Corporation of Madras in the year 1985, she put up a construction on the said vacant land in the year 1986. The property is assessed in her name and she is paying the property tax. She is also an income tax and wealth tax assessee. After the construction of the building, both the plaintiff and the defendant lived together in the said house. Due to misunderstanding that arose between them, the defendant started ill-treating the plaintiff. The defendant, in fact was cruel and indulged in several acts of cruelty. Since the life was miserable, the plaintiff had to leave the house fearing for her life on 14.06.1987. Since then, the plaintiff is living separately. The defendant is squatting over the property besides enjoying the luxury articles left by the plaintiff in the house viz., sofa sets costly furniture, ward robes etc.

4. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant is also letting out the house for the purpose of film shootings and is collecting the rent for the same. The plaintiff therefore issued a notice on 01.03.1993 to the defendant, demanding the vacant possession of the land and building. Nevertheless, the defendant did not hand over the vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff. As the defendant is making use of the building and the luxury articles worth about Rs.3,00,000/-, the plaintiff claimed the damages from the defendant at Rs.25,000/- per month for the period from 31.01.1990 to 30.04.1993. According to the plaintiff, even if the building is let out on rent, it would fetch not less than Rs.30,000/- per month. On the above averments, the plaintiff prayed for a judgment and decree

(1) directing the defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff.

(2) directing the defendant to pay Rs.9,00,000/- as damages for use and occupation from 31.01.1990 to 30.04.1993 with a further direction that the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- per day from the date of the plaint till the date of actual delivery of vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

5. The suit was resisted by the defendant with the following averments in the written statement:-

The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was admitted. However, according to the defendant the vacant site was purchased by the defendant from his own funds and the funds given to him by his brother Samson Thomas who works in Doha, Qatar and his father by way of gifts. The plaintiff's contribution for the purchase of the vacant site was only Rs.70,000/-. Since the plaintiff happened to be the wife of the defendant, the defendant purchased the vacant site in the name of the plaintiff. The averment that the plaintiff put up the construction from her own funds was denied. The defendant further averred that the contribution of the plaintiff for the construction of the house was only Rs.1,40,000/-. The total investment and the cost of construction of the house was Rs.12,00,000/-. Except Rs.2,10,000/- contributed by the plaintiff, the remaining cost of construction was met by the defendant from the funds of his brother. Since the land was registered in the name