The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of entitlement for recovery of possession and the validity of the termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.440 of 2004 dated 08.08.2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam, as confirmed in A.S.No.54 of 2008 dated 15.09.2009 on the file of the Sub Judge, Nagapattinam.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. This Second Appeal is against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The legal heirs of the defendants are the appellants herein. Since there are two earlier proceedings between the parties in respect of the suit property, parties are described by name, wherever required and as per their litigative status in the respective proceedings, as far as possible.

2. The property which is the subject matter of this appeal is one acre wet land in Seeyathamangai Village, Nannilam Taluk, Nagapattinam. It was assigned to one Murugaiyan an Ex-Serviceman, under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act. He remained unmarried and died issueless. During his life time, Nagalakshmi, who is the first defendant/first appellant herein, filed O.S.No.197/1987 for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of this property against Murugaiyan, Ranganathan and Sivasami. In that suit Nagalakshmi pleaded that Murugaiyan after retirement from Army was living with her family and he was taken care by her and her family members. On 01/08/1974, he leased out the suit property to her and handed over the possession to her. She and her son paid the balance instalments for the property and enjoying it. Further, Murugaiyan also executed a will dated 18/02/1975 in favour of her son. While so, at the instigation of others he gave a petition to the Legal Service Authority as if she is in possession of the property illegally. In that proceedings Nagalakshmi agreed to hand over the possession to Murugaiyan if he repay Rs.3,500/- which she spend towards the payment of tax, instalments and interest to the instalments. Without paying the money spend for the property, Murugaiyan trying to forcefully take possession of the property.

3. The suit was contested by Murugaiyan denying the execution of lease deed in favour of the Nagalakshmi. It was alleged as a fabricated document. However, the Courts held that the lease deed marked as Ex.A-20 in O.S.No.197 of 1987 is valid and the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the property. The trial Court granted the relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal, same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.6 of 1990.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, Second Appeal in S.A. No.859/1992 was filed by Murugaiyan and others against Nagalakshmi. Pending second appeal, Murugaiyan died. This Court confirmed the findings of the Courts below. Thus, the possession of the suit property in favour of the Nagalakshmi reached finality on 31/10/2002 when the Second Appeal No.859/1992 got dismissed.

5. Meanwhile, soon after the demise of Murugaiyan, Singaravelu the second appellant herein filed O.S.No.392/1992 for declaration that the estate of Murugaiyan devolves on him. In that suit, Singaravelu alleged that he and Murugaiyan are brothers. The suit property is under lease with his wife (Nagalakshmi). Due to some misunderstanding Murugaiyan filed suit against his wife. However, on the death of Murugaiyan on 15/11/1991, under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 he is the legal heir of the deceased Murugaiyan.

6. In the said suit, O.S.No.392 of 1992, Mr.Ranganathan was the sole defendant. He contested the suit denying the relationship of Singaravelu and Murugaiyan. It was contented that they both belong to different community. During the life time, Murugaiyan executed a will in favour of Sivaprakasam S/o.Ranganathan (Ex.B-3) and got it registered. The defendant contented that under this will dated 02/07/1991 Murugaiyan has bequeathed the suit property in favour of Sivaprakasam absolutely, reserving life interest to defendant (Ranaganathan). The Trial Court dismi