S.S. Sundar, J.

This Second Appeal has been filed by the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.140 of 2012 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Madurai.

2. The first respondent in this appeal, as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.140 of 2012 for declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and for recovery of possession of the suit property from the appellant after receiving the amount of Rs.2,10,000/- deposited by the plaintiff in Court. The suit is also to direct the first defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the plaintiff towards damages for the use and occupation of the suit property by the first defendant.

3. The case of the first respondent in the plaint are as follows:

3.1. The suit property belong to one Sangaiah Konar and that on the demise of the said Sangaiah Konar, the property devolved on the defendants 2 to 5, being his legal heirs. Since the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from the legal heirs of the deceased Sangaiah Konar i.e., from defendants 2 to 5, he became the absolute owner of the suit property which is a commercial building in a busy locality of Madurai Town.

3.2. The second defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- from the first defendant on the foot of a demand promissory note dated 23.01.1998 and in lieu of interest payable by her to the first defendant, the possession of the suit property was given to the first defendant to enjoy the same without any rent for a period of three years in terms of an agreement dated 28.01.1998 between the defendants 1 and 2.

3.3. Once again, the defendants 2 to 5 borrowed a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the first defendant on 01.03.2001 and executed a fresh promissory note for a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- in favour of the first defendant. Similar to the earlier agreement, a fresh agreement was also executed between the first defendant and the defendants 2 to 5 on 01.03.2001. The first defendant had agreed to surrender the possession of the suit property on repayment of a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- by the defendants 2 to 5 within a period of three years from 01.03.2001. It was only thereafter the plaintiff purchased the suit property bona fidely, in good faith, under a registered sale deed dated 16.07.2007. The sale deed refers to the amount payable by defendants 2 to 5 and the obligation of the plaintiff to discharge the promissory note amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- due to the first defendant and to get delivery of the suit property from him. However, when the plaintiff approached the first defendant during the month of August, 2007, for repaying the promissory note amount of Rs. 2,10,000/-, the first defendant refused to receive the amount and deliver the suit property to the plaintiff with ulterior motives.

3.4. Though the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- borrowed by the defendants 2 to 5 is a time barred debt and the first defendant cannot recover the same from the plaintiff, the plaintiff bona fidely offered the first defendant and requested the first defendant to deliver the suit property by receiving the sum of Rs. 2,10,000/-. However, the first defendant had turned as a deaf ear. In such circumstances, the first defendant's possession over the suit property is unlawful and illegal and amounts to trespass. Despite the plaintiff tendering the amount on various occasions, the first defendant refused to surrender the possession and to avoid any legal battle, the plaintiff finally tendered the amount on 16.10.2011 by way of a Demand Draft dated 12.10.2011 favouring the first defendant and the first defendant refused to receive the demand draft. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice to the first defendant on 17.10.2011. For which, the first defendant sent a reply on 22.10.2011 contending false and baseless allegations. The first defendant is not at all a tenant in respect of the suit property and the alleged tenancy right based on the agreement dated 28.01.1998 and 01.03.2001 do not confer any tenancy right