JUDGMENT :

The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.249 of 2010 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli and in A.S.No.59 of 2013, by the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.249 of 2010, on the file of the trial Court, directing the defendant to handover the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff; directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- being the monthly rent from September 2009 to February 2010 together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of realization and also directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.400/- per month as damages from March 2010 upto the date of handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property by the defendant to the plaintiff for his unauthorized use and occupation of the suit schedule property together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of realization, wherein, the present respondent has been shown as defendant.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property, which is a residential building. The defendant was a tenant in the suit property from 01.04.2004 for a monthly rent of Rs.250/-. As the defendant had failed to pay the rent from the month of September 2009 onwards and as the plaintiff's husband had retired from service, the plaintiff wanted the building for her own use and occupation. Hence, the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the suit property. Since the defendant failed to do so, the plaintiff issued a legal notice, dated 13.10.2010, to the defendant terminating the tenancy and calling for the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession on 28.02.2010. The defendant, after receiving the notice, has not vacated the property. Since the defendant did not vacate from the suit property, the plaintiff has filed the suit with the above prayer.

4. The defendant had filed a written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property and the defendant has not paid a monthly rent of Rs.250/-. For the notice, dated 13.01.2010, the defendant sent a reply notice on 11.02.2010. Originally, the suit schedule property and other properties were owned by the defendant's father Arumuga Velar and he executed a Will on 30.09.1991. After the death of Arumuga Velar, the defendant got bequeathed the property through a Will and on 31.12.2009, he had executed a settlement deed in favour of his son Krishnamoorthy. Suppressing the above said facts, the plaintiff has filed the suit with false averments and the same has to be dismissed.

5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 to D.W.6 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.9 was marked and also Ex.X.1 was also marked.

6. On the basis of the rival pleadings made on either side, the trial Court, after framing necessary issues and after evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the suit.

7. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff, as appellant, had filed an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.59 of 2013. The first appellate Court, after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record, has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

8. Challenging the said concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, the present Second Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the plaintiff, as appellant.

9. At the time of admitting the present second appeal, this Court had framed the following substantial question of law for consideration:

"1) Whether the Courts below are correct in believing Ex.B.6, when the suspicious circumstances are not dispelled with, especially, in the light of Section 111 of the India