JUDGMENT: The second defendant in O.S.No.84 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Pattukottai, is the appellant in the second appeal.

2. The first respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of her title to the suit property, and for recovery of possession for Rs.12,250 towards past profits, on the following averments:

The suit property belonged to her having been purchased by her from one Mohammed Sheik Kadiyar under a registered sale deed, dated 10.4.1974. The property was a north eastern portion of a larger extent owned by the vendor in the then S.No.73/6B. At the time of her purchase, it was a vacant site. She was registered as pattadar, and further sub division was effected as 73/6B2 while the vendor was registered for the remaining extent with sub division 73/6B1 in S.No.73/6B. The Tahsildar passed suitable orders on that sub division. The patta number was 472 and she had been entered as owner in possession in R.S.R. Chitta, Adangal, etc. of the Government. The suit property was being assessed in her name exclusively. She put a thatched house and an office room in a portion of it. The property abutted Thaikkal Road in the east, and on the north it was channel poramboke with Sethu Road on its further north. A third party was allowed to enjoy the eastern portion of the suit property for servicing his transport bus. He had put up a ramp and tin shed above to station his bus. This was under leave and licence from the plaintiff. After he surrendered possession, the plaintiff leased out the property on 20.12.1984 to the first defendant providing for a term of one year with an option for renewal on a monthly rent of Rs.350 with non-interest carrying advance of Rs.3,000 repayable to the lessee on the termination of lease, the demise being 50 sq.ft. east to west and 31 ft. north to south measuring 2 1/2 cents only with Tin sheet roof shed, east and north of the plaintiff’s property and south of the second defendant, who had put up a building to the north of the suit property in the channel poramboke. The first defendant had taken the lease for running a hotel. He was allowed to put up his own construction to suit his hotel business purpose. It would appear, he had taken the northern property also from the second defendant and had his business premises extended in the suit property to serve as an annex for his hotel facing the road on the north. The lease deed and the FMB plan had been filed along with the plaint. The first defendant had not paid rents as a holding over tenant after 20.6.1991. The plaintiff caused a registered notice, dated 16.11.1992 to be issued to the defendants through her lawyer calling upon them to clear off the arrears and give vacant possession by 20.12.1992, treating the notice for termination of tenancy with tenancy month ending 19.12.1992, specifically drawing their attention to their unauthorised sub-letting by the first defendant to the second defendant in particular. The first defendant sent a reply immediately on 19.11.1992, disowning liability and pleading surrender by 20.12.1985 itself on the efflux of the period contemplated under the lease deed. The second defendant replied on 17.12.1992 through his counsel claiming title to the property in himself ancestral and disputing the plaintiff’s title and the first defendant’s tenancy with her and also sub-letting from the first defendant. There was a vain attempt to suppress the running of Arun Hotel by the first defendant in the premises. There was also absence of any of of title or possession in his favour. The second defendant, if at all, had been in the channel poramboke by reason of Arun Hotel run by the first defendant and the extension over the suit property was sought to be exploited by him. The first defendant’s occupation in the channel poramboke was totally in a different survey sub division namely 67 and 73/1 in the north with recent encroachment, after his lease from plaintiff, on the suit property. Defendants 1 and 2 we

Click Here to Read the rest of this document