Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
E. Kanchana, (died) & Others – Appellant
Versus
Rajeswari & Others – Respondent
A.S. Nos. 291 & 292 of 2015 & C.M.P. No. 6386 of 2016
Decided On : 24-03-2021
Presidency Small Causes Court Act – Section 41 – City Tenant Protection Act – Section 9 – Tenancy Issues – Ejectment of tenant - Suit. was initially filed by Kanchana and Balasubramaniam before the High Court of Judicature at Madras and numbered as C.S.No.4 of 2008, it was later transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai and taken on file as O.S. – In the said suit, the plaintiff sought for declaration of title regarding the superstructure and the land bearing old door No.110, New No.16, Dr.Rangachari Road, Mylapore, Chennai, in R.S.No.3567/2B and the sale deed executed by the wife and sons of Chandrasekar/defendants 2 to 6 in favour of Kuppammal/7th defendant as null and void. – O.S.was filed by K.Kuppammal before the Small Causes Court, Chennai and initially numbered as Ejectment Suit No.6 of 2008. – Later transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai, renumbered as 8982 of 2010. – In this suit Kuppammal the plaintiff had sought for delivery of vacant land upon which the building bearing old door No.110, New Door No.16, Dr.Rangachari Road, Mylapore, Chennai, comprising in S.No.3567/2 as per patta No.3567/7 of Mylapore Village, measuring to an extent of 1150 sq.ft stand and put the plaintiff in possession of the same after removing the superstructure; also to direct Kanchana and Balasubramaniam who are the defendants in this suit to pay a sum of Rs.88/- p.a being the arrears of rent for the period from April 2007 to April 2008. – Whether the Trial Court conclusion that the appellant, who entered into the suit property as a tenant in the year 1953 continued to be a tenant is legal and factually correct in the light of the compromise decree dated 06.03.1975
Finding of court: Trial Court failed to consider the litigative history of the case and the transfer of status and right. – The conduct of Chandrasekar who had all along tried to evict Ekambaram under one pretext or another, failed in his attempt and later compromised with Ekamabaram and got satisfied being relieved from discharging the debt payable to K.S.Narasimhan under the decree in O.S.No.1336 of 1974. – Ekamabaram had agreed to discharge the said debt in lieu of the land cost payable to Chandrasekar. – While fact being so, after 31 years, Chandrasekar has created documents on 11.10.2006 by settling the property on which he had lost right long ago. – Then within six months that property is transferred through the sale deed in favour of 7th defendant on 23.04.2007 with embellished recital. Passing of consideration Rs.20,00,000/- itself is highly doubtful. – The testimony of D.W.1 to D.W.3 in respect of payment of sale consideration does not inspire confidence the 7th defendant a bonafide purchaser. – The contradictions regarding the payment of sale consideration causes doubt about the bonafide of the 7th defendant. – Classical requirement of adverse possession namely “nec vi, nec clam and nec precario” is fully satisfied in this case. – The animus to hold the land as owner has been proved from the conduct of Ekambaram. – The landlord Chandrasekar, after compromise deed dated 06.03.1975 had not shown any animus to hold the property and he had been ousted openly. – The continuously, uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property adequately proved by the plaintiff through documentary and oral evidence. – Trial Court having failed to appreciate the documentary evidence on holistic manner and had lopsidedly held in favour of the purchaser, who has not proved his bonafide nor proved the right of his vendors to alienate the property. – In such circumstances, this Court holds that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be reversed.
Result: Appeal Suits Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer in A.S.No.291 of 2015: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 C.P.C read with Order XLI Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C., against the award and decreetal order dated 03.02.2015 made in O.S.No.8981 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
A.S.No.292 of 2015: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 C.P.C read with Order XLI Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2015 made in O.S.No.8982 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.)
1. These two appeals arising from the common judgment passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.8981 of 2010 and O.S.No.8982 of 2010.
2. The property which is the subject matter of the appeals under consideration had passed through several litigations and have a chequered history. For the sake of brevity and clarity, the parties shall be referred by their names wherever necessary and their status and rank as mentioned in O.S.No.8981 of 2010.
3. E.Kanchana and Balasubramaniam @ E.Saravanan wife and son of late Ekambaram respectively are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.8981 of 2010. They will be hereinafter referred as plaintiffs. S.Chandrasekar, his wife and four sons, who are the defendants 1 to 6 in O.S.No.8981 of 2010 will be hereinafter described as defendants along with K.Kuppammal and Karthik. The said kuppammal is the plaintiff in O.S.No.8982 of 2010 and Karthik is her husband. Kuppammal is the purchaser of the suit property from defendants 2 to 6.
(i). O.S.No.8981 of 2010 was initially filed by Kanchana and Balasubramaniam before the High Court of Judicature at Madras and numbered as C.S.No.4 of 2008, it was later transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai and taken on file as O.S.No.8981 of 2010. In the said suit, the plaintiff sought for declaration of title regarding the superstructure and the land bearing old door No.110, New No.16, Dr.Rangachari Road, Mylapore, Chennai, in R.S.No.3567/2B and the sale deed dated 23.04.2007 executed by the wife and sons of Chandrasekar/defendants 2 to 6 in favour of Kuppammal/7th defendant as null and void.
(ii). O.S.No.8982 of 2010 was filed by K.Kuppammal before the Small Causes Court, Chennai and initially numbered as Ejectment Suit No.6 of 2008. Later transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai, renumbered as 8982 of 2010. In this suit Kuppammal the plaintiff had sought for delivery of vacant land upon which the building bearing old door No.110, New Door No.16, Dr.Rangachari Road, Mylapore, Chennai, comprising in S.No.3567/2 as per patta No.3567/7 of Mylapore Village, measuring to an extent of 1150 sq.ft stand and put the plaintiff in possession of the same after removing the superstructure; also to direct Kanchana and Balasubramaniam who are the defendants in this suit to pay a sum of Rs.88/- p.a being the arrears of rent for the period from April 2007 to April 2008.
4. Before adverting to the respective contentions made by the parties in their pleadings for better appreciate of the case, the background history of the litigations is given in nutshell:
The suit schedule property is part of larger extent of land measuring 36 x 107 feet in R.S.No.3567/2. In the year 1961, the owner of the land Chandrasekar, who got the property from his mother Dhanammal, entered into sale agreements dated 15.06.1961 and 13.09.1961 with one K.S.Narasimhan. Chandrasekar and his three sons agreed to sell the land to K.S.Narsimhan for sale a consideration of Rs.11,000/- with a promise that they will vacate the tenants in the suit property and handover the vacant possession. One among the tenants was Ekambaram. In order to evict Ekambaram, the landlord Chandrasekar initially filed proceedings under Land and Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, but same was dismissed since the tenant proved that he was tenant for the ground and paying ground rent, whereas the superstructure was put up by him. Thereafter, suits were filed for evicting the tenants. While in two of the suits, the landlord Chandrasekar succeeded and got the te
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
