This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for recovery of possession of about 5.5/6 grounds comprised in Re-survey No. 3155 situated in Kuttiappa Gramani Street, Madavakkam. The appellant’s case is that the suit plot belonged to the plaint temple, that one ground of it was originally leased out in 1904 to Ponnappa Naicken, that Ponnappa sold his leasehold interest to Ranganayaki Ammal, that Ranganayaki Ammal sold it to Munuswami Gramani, that in 1926 Munuswami Gramani sold it to Ponnuswami and that Ponnuswami’s lease was subsequently determined. The defendant was at first a mortgagee from Ponnuswami. Subsequently he obtained a mortgage decree and in execution of that decree purchased whatever rights Ponnuswami had in the property. The appellant further states that after terminating Ponnuswami’s tenancy the trustees took possession of the property and leased it out to third parties and that after the respondent purchased the property in execution of his mortage decree obtained against Ponnuswami, he threatened to interfere with the possession of the appellant’s tenants. This suit is therefore for a declaration that the respondent is not entitled to the suit site. There is also a prayer for possession of the property.

The suit was at first decreed by the City Civil Judge but on appeal to this Court in C.C.C.A. No. 37 of 1942 the decree was set aside and the suit was remanded for disposal according to law. This time the City Civil Judge dismissed the suit for possession but granted a decree declaring the title of the appellant. The title of the appellant to the suit was found but the relief for possession was refused on the ground that the necessary three months’ notice provided by section 11 of the City Tenants Protection Act (Madras Act III of 1922) was not given by the appellant and hence this appeal. There were also various other questions raised, some of which are discussed in the judgment of the lower Court.

The appellant’s case is that the original lease was only of one ground and that the respondent is now in wrongful possession of 5-5/6 grounds. The main defence is that the property belonged absolutely to Ponnuswami and that the plaint allegation that Ponnuswami was a lessee of the land from the temple is not true. The alternative defence is that even if Ponnuswami was a lessee, the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the City Tenants Protection Act. There was a further plea that the title of the appellant was lost by adverse possession. From the documents it appears that in the sale deed by Ponnappa to Ranganayaki Ammal (Exhibit P-1 of 1918) the extent is mentioned as 3 grounds and 1,350 square feet. The same extent is mentioned in the sale deed by Ranganayakai Ammal to Munuswami Gramani (Ex. P-2). This is of the year 1921. In 1926 Munuswami sold the property in his turn to Ponnuswami. This is evidenced by Ex. D-i. In this document the boundaries are given and also the measurements on the four sides. The extent lying within these boundaries is not stated, but it is conceded that it works out at 5-5/6 grounds. The subsequent mortgage deed by Ponnuswami in favour of the defendant (Ex. P-5) also gives the boundaries and measurements on the four sides. On the same day as the mortgage there was a lease back by the defendant to Ponnuswami evidenced by Ex. D-5 and that document follows the description in Ex. P-5 and in Ex. D-1. The sale certificate issued to the defendant when he purchased the property in execution of his mortgage decree also gives the same. (Ex. D-6.) The City Civil Judge, who originally tried the suit, found that the tenancy was only of the extent covered by Exhibits P-1 and P-2, i.e., 3 grounds and 1,350 square feet (vide paragraph 35 of his judgment). In the present judgment the City Civil Judge does not give a definite finding whether the defendant was a tenant of only 3 grounds and 1,350 square feet or of 5-5/6 grounds. The Judge says that the plaint did not seek to make any difference

Click Here to Read the rest of this document