Tenant cannot deny land lords title.

1. Theunsuccessful plaintiff before the courts below has filed this second appeal.

2. Theplaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.5983 of 1982 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for recovery of possession of the suit property bearing door No.90, New Door No.46, Kodambakkam High Road, Madras-17 from the defendants on receiving a sum of Rs.3,000 as compensation for the superstructure standing on the suit property and for arrears of rent and damages.

3. According to the plaintiff, one Saradambal purchased under Ex.A1, dated 27.7.1944 measuring an extent of 7 grounds, 2382 sq.ft., but the actual measurement is 8 grounds, 936 sq.ft. According to the plaintiff, in 1957 the said Saradambal leased out a portion of the land measuring one ground and 890 sq.ft. the suit property, for carrying on firewood depot business, to one Kannammal, who is the mother of the 1st defendant and wife of the 2nd defendant. The said Kannammal died in 1975. But the rent was sent by the 2nd defendant to Saradambal. The said Saradambal issued a notice under Ex.A2, dated 24.2.76 asking the 2nd defendant on what basis the 2nd defendant has been sending the rent. A reply was sent under Ex.A4 dated 17.4.76 stating that pursuant to the wishes of Kannammal, the 1st defendant's brothers have settled the firewood depot business and the superstructure on the land leased out by Saradambal in favour of the 1st defendant and he is the owner of the business and superstructure and that he is entitled to leasehold interest in the said land. Under Ex.A5, the property purchased under Ex.A1 has been settled in favour of the plaintiff-trust by the said Saradambal. The plaintiff sold 7 grounds and 46 sq.ft. under Ex.A21 in favour of 27 persons retaining one ground and 890 sq.ft. leased out to Kannammal. The 3rd defendant filed another suit in O.S.No.4742 of 1981 seeking declaration of his title on the basis that he had perfected title over the land leased out to Kannammal, by adverse possession and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.12.85. The 3rd defendant had come forward with the said suit on the basis that he had been inducted into possession of the land by Kannammal. The plaintiff sent a notice under Ex.A23 dated 12.3.82 calling upon the defendants to surrender vacant possession of the land. But the defendants by way of reply had disputed the title of Saradambal and consequently that of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff filed the present suit.

4. Defendants 1 and 2 filed common written statement. According to them, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and its predecessors on the one hand and the defendants and their predecessors on the other in the facts and circumstances mentioned in the written statement. In paragraph 4 therein it is admitted that the plaintiff’s predecessor Saradambal granted a plot of land to Kannammal, the predecessor of defendants 1 and 2, on oral lease. But, it is stated that such a lease granted on a wholly wrong and false representation that she was the owner of the land of which she was purporting to grant lease. It is also stated that such a lease was only invalid and void and not binding on the said Kannammal and the defendants 1 and 2. It is further stated that the right of Saradambal has come to an end and extinguished on the abolition of Shrotrium of Puliyur village by issuing notification under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948. Their further case is that Saradambal purchased only 7 grounds and 2382 sq.ft. and not 8 grounds, 986 sq.ft. They have also stated that the defendants are not liable to pay any arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. Referring to the value of the superstructure, it is stated that the real market value of the superstructure is at least Rs.10,000.

5. The 3rd defendant filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He was managing the firewood depot only in the capacity of manager. It is