JUDGMENT :- This second appeal has been brought forth from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, made in A. S. No. 53/92, wherein the judgment of the trial Court dismissing a suit for recovery of possession, lease amount and mesne profits was reversed.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for the said reliefs with the following averments in the plaint :

The defendant took on lease the building and the site door No. 1A (Now 1-B) in R. S. No. 260, Natham. He executed a registered rent deed in favour of the plaintiff's father Sundaresam Pillai on 1-4-1978. The lease was for a period of three years from 1-4-1978 to 31-3-1981. The monthly rental was Rs. 50/-. Sundaresam Pillai executed a Will on 18-10-1975, bequeathing the property in favour of the plaintiff. Sundaresam Pillai died. The defendant was never regular in the payment of rental. The defendant was in arrears from 1-4-1980. In view of the wilful default, the plaintiff issued a notice on 26-12-1980 to the defendant. The tenancy also expired by efflux of time. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit properties and also the past rental of Rs. 600/-. Out of 20 feet east west and 102 feet north south in the second item of property, Rajamani Ammal was entitled to 10 feet east west and 60 feet north south, and the plaintiff was not claiming the portion of Rajamani Ammal. Hence, there arose a necessity for filing the suit.

3. The suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant with the following averments:

(a) The original landlord Sundaresam Pillai died on 27-5-1979, and he had got other heirs namely his wife Sethu Ammal, son Visvalingam Pillai and 7 daughters. The alleged Will could not be a genuine one. The plaintiff has to first get a declaration of his sole right in a properly framed suit. The suit was bad for non-joinder of all the necessary parties. The defendant and his father paid the rent to the plaintiff subsequent to the receipt of the notice. The plaintiff never used to pass a receipt for the amount received from him. The advance amount paid by him to Sundaresam Pillai has not been given credit by the plaintiff. It has to be construed as lease for an indefinite period i.e. lease for life. He is entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants Protection Act. The suit was premature.

(b) He was only a lessee to the suit site. R. S. No. 260 is a natham, Government poramboke as per the Government record. The plaintiff has no right to the suit property. The defendant was in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years, and he has constructed a building in that land for business purpose. Admittedly, the suit site belonged to Arunajadeswara Swamy Koil, Thirupanandal. Hence, the temple and the Government were necessary parties to the suit. The Government alone can have the right to evict him. He was always ready to pay the necessary charges if levied. The plaintiff was estopped to plead any additional claim or right over any other property in this suit. He has to file a separate suit for the same. The defendant is an engineer. The Tamil Nadu Government has recommended him to start an Agro Service Centre at Thirupanandal. Accordingly, he started the same with the help of the State Bank of India. If he is given trouble to vacate, it will affect the whole efforts of the Government to assist the farmers. Hence, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court framed the necessary issues, tried the suit and dismissed the same. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff therefrom, which was taken up for enquiry by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam. On enquiry, the learned Subordinate Judge set aside the judgment of the trial Court and granted the relief, as asked for by the plaintiff. Aggrieved, the defendant has brought forth this second appeal.

5. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court :

(1) Whether the appellant was estopped from questioning the title of the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document