The main legal point established is the admissibility of oral tenancy and the use of unregistered lease deeds for collateral purposes.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment in A.S.No.14/1998 reversing the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.426/1985 thereby ordering delivery of possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff is Hereditary Trustee of Chidambaram Vanuvar Podhu. Suit property situated at Ward No.4, Plot No.1 comprised in T.S.No.22, Door No.129 measuring 4995 sq.ft. in East Car street, Kasba Chidamabram.

3. Briefly stated case of Plaintiff is that the suit property was given on rent to deceased Defendant Babu in the year 1977 for a period of seven years by the then Hereditary Trustee Kuppusamy Chettiar on a monthly rent of Rs.110/- per month which was reduced in writing in an unregistered written rental agreement dated 30.4.1977. Kuppusamy Chettiar died in 1981. After the death of Kuppusamy Chettiar, the present Trustee Bharathi received the rent till December 1984 and later the Defendant sent cheque for Rs.200/- being the increased rent for the months January and February 1985, the tenancy came to an end on 30.4.1984. Since the Defendant failed to surrender possession after expiry of tenancy, Plaintiff has filed the suit.

4. Defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit is time barred and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Defendant averred that the suit property did not belong to the Plaintiff trust and that he never took possession from Kuppusamy Chettiar. According to the Defendants, neither Bharathi nor Kuppusamy have any right in the suit property and that the rent deed dated 30.4.1977 is a forged document and Plaintiff cannot seek for delivery of possession.

5. On the above pleadings, trial court framed as many as 11 Issues. On the side of Plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A20 were marked. On the side of Defendant, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B9 were marked.

6. Upon consideration of evidence on Issue No.10, trial court held that Plaintiff has locustandi to represent Chidambaram Vanuvar Podhu to file the suit. On Issue No.8 – question of jurisdiction, trial court held that Civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. On Issue No.9, trial court held that the court fee paid was correct and held against the Defendant, Insofar as, other Issues, trial court held that Ex.A11 – lease deed is an unregistered document and when the Defendant denied the execution of Ex.A11, the same cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose. Trial court further held that in the light of denial of execution of Ex.A11, Plaintiff would not be entitled to delivery of possession in the suit.

7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, Plaintiff has filed appeal in A.S.No.14/1998. Pending first appeal, Defendant Babu died and his legal representatives were added as Respondents-Defendants in the appeal. Lower Appellate Court held that Plaintiff has established that the suit property was owned by the community and that the document Ex.A11 could not have been created by the Plaintiff. Lower Appellate Court further held that even though, Ex.A11 is insufficiently stamped and unregistered and inadmissible, there can be even a oral tenancy and that tenancy need not be by written instrument. Holding that Defendant is tenant of the Plaintiff, Lower Appellate Court held that Defendant has duty to surrender possession to the Plaintiff and on those findings, reversed the finding of the trial court and allowed the Appeal.

8. Aggrieved by the reversal Judgment, Appellants have filed this Second Appeal. Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether Court is entitled to decide the transaction through oral evidence when the terms of the transaction are reduced to writing and whether Section 91 of Evidence Act is not a bar for proving the terms of a Contract by oral evidence?

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title when the tenancy and the title of the plaintiff has been denied by the Defendant even in th