SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Mad) 2816

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN
S. Murugesan - Appellant
Versus
V. Vijay Sai & Others - Respondents
SA.No.1100 of 2006 & MP.No.1 of 2006
Decided On : 25 October 2006

Appearing Advocates: For the Appellant:N.S. Manoharan, Advocate. For the Respondents: ---

No legal bar to Court for using its own eyes to compare the disputed signatures with that of proved one.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), Order 8, Rules 6-A, 6-C - Counter claim - Money suit-Order 8, Rule 6 or 6-A is not restricting nature of relief which defendant might seek in counter claim - Defendant could set up by way of counter claim, any right or claim against plaintiff which arise before defendant delivered his defence - Findings of Courts below based on valid evidence--Appeal dismissed.

Judgment :-

(Prayer:- This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2006 made in AS.No.238/2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC III) Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree made in OS.No.10153/1996 dated 17.11.2003, on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. The Plaintiff, who lost his case before both the courts below, is the appellant in this second appeal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as they were arrayed in the suit.

2. The Plaintiff filed the suit in OS.No.10153/1996 before the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,38,141/- being the present cost of construction together with interest thereon at 24% p.a. and another sum of Rs.1,49,700/- being the advance amount together with interest thereon at 24% p.a. and for permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants from disturbing his possession and enjoyment of the I Floor and the terrace as well as all other common portions or amenities as enjoyed by the Plaintiff being part of the schedule mentioned property in any manner and the trial court decreed the suit that the Plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.12,225.42/- towards the cost of the construction from the Defendants 2 to 4 at the time of vacating the suit property by the Plaintiff and that in other respects, dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim of the Defendants with costs for a sum of Rs.74,906/- with future interest thereon at 12% p.a. from the date of counter claim i.e. from 28.10.1994 till the date of the decree and at 6% p.a. thereafter till payment. As against the same, the Plaintiff filed an appeal in AS.No.238/2005 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC III) Chennai, which was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, this second appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff.

3. The case of the Plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:-

The Plaintiff was a tenant under a rental agreement dated 1.3.1972 in respect of the I Floor with open terrace as mentioned in the plaint schedule belonged to the 1st Defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. The Plaintiff effected several improvements, alterations and additions in the I Floor at the cost of Rs.12,800/-. As per the agreement dated 1.3.1972, Ex.A1, the Plaintiff was allowed to put up constructions and sublet a portion and the 1st Defendant has to repay the cost of the constructions at the market rate prevailing at the time of vacating the premises to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant exchanged Exs.A3 to A5, thereby the 1st Defendant agreed to pay the entire cost of the construction as per the prevailing market rate on the date of vacating the premises. While things are as such, the said property was sold to the 5th Defendant and hence, the suit was filed for recovery of the amounts as stated above and for permanent injunction against all of them.

4. The said suit was resisted by the Defendants by filing a written statement before the trial court, contending that the Plaintiff was permitted to carry out certain alterations for the above said cost and that the 1st Defendant agreed to repay the same and that the Plaintiff has not paid any rental advance and that the amount payable by the Defendants was only a lesser amount and not as claimed by the Plaintiff as per the prevailing market value at the time of vacating the premises in dispute and that even prior to the filing of the said suit, the 1st Defendant filed RCOP.No.1947/1986 for fixation of fair rent and the monthly fair rent was fixed at Rs.1,418/- by the rent control authority and as against the same, the Plaintiff filed appeal in RCA.No.1006/1992 and the 1st Defendant filed an appeal in RCA.No.1005/1992 for enhancement of rent and that the rent control appeal filed by the Plaintiff was dismissed and the rent control appeal filed by the 1st Defendant was allowed, enhancing t


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top