Filing of civil suit in tenancy of building issue is barred.

Defendant in O.S. No.435 of 1976, on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Tuticorin, is the appellant.

2. Suit filed by plaintiffs is one for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

3. It is said that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the father of the defendant. On the death of the defendant’s father, his right devolved on his two sons, namely, Ramiah Pannaiyar and Subbiah Pannaiyar (defendant). He had also a daughter by name Poongani Ammal. The appellant (defendant) and his brother obtained release of the right of Poongani Ammal and, therefore, the appellant and his brother became the absolute owners of the property. A partition was effected between the defendant and Ramiah Pannaiyar and the plaint property was allotted to the share of Ramiah Pannaiyar. Defendant was given some other property. First plaintiff purchased the plaint property as a vacant site from Ramiah Pannaiyar as per sale deed dated 15. 1974. After purchase, he put up a hut therein. The defendant at that time was living in his family house, which got dilapidated and ruined. Therefore, the requested the first plaintiff to let out the suit hut in the plaint schedule property to him, and accordingly, first plaintiff let out the same to him at the rate of Rs.5 per month. Defendant was paying rent till 30.9.1975 and then he defaulted to pay rent. The tenancy was terminated by notice. It is also said that the first plaintiff executed a gift in favour of second plaintiff as per document dated 20.9.1976. For the suit notice, defendant sent a reply raising frivolous contentions and he refused to surrender possession. Therefore, the suit was necessitated.

4. In his written statement, defendant contended that Ramiah Pannaiyar did not enjoy the suit property and that he (defendant) was enjoying the same and that he has planted three coconut trees and one lime and one orange plant. He denied the tenancy and said that he has prescribed title by adverse possession. He also disputed the validity of the gift and also the sale deed in favour of first plaintiff. He said that he has sent a reply narrating the true facts, and therefore, he is not liable to be evicted from the property. He prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Trial court took both oral and documentary evidence. It marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 on the side of the plaintiffs and two witnesses were examined. P.W. 1 is the second plaintiff and P.W.2 is an independent witness. On the side of the defendant (appellant herein) Exs.B-1 to B-15 were marked. Defendant was examined as D.W.I and an independent witness was also examined as D.W.2.

6. Trial Court, after discussing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the property, and that the sale deed Ex.A-1 is valid and Ramiah Pannaiyar was competent to execute the same. It also held that the gift deed executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the second plaintiff, as evidence by Ex.A-2 is also valid. It also held that there was a registered partition deed between defendant and his brother Ramiah Pannaiyar, and Ramiah Pannaiyar was the absolute owner of the property. It also came to the conclusion that the building was constructed by the first plaintiff and the residence of the defendant in the building in the property can only be as stated by plaintiffs. It also held that there no adverse possession or limitation. The suit was ultimately decreed with costs.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment, defendant preferred A.3. No. 177 of 1978, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin. Lower Appellate Court also confirmed all the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. It also held that the appellant is not entitled to any amount for the improvements. The finding of the lower appellate court was also that the plaintiffs came into possession of the land, and the building belongs to them, the same having been constructed by the first plaintiff.

8. It is against the co