The nature of payments in landlord-tenant relationships is determined by the substance of the transaction, not the terminology used, and the absence of a registered gift deed invalidates claims of ownership.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2007 passed by the I Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai in A.S.No. 226 of 2006 reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2006 passed in O.S.No. 1698 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town.

1. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession against the respondent and also for recovery of damages for use and occupation. The appellant also sought for an injunction restraining the respondent from effecting any alterations or additions in the suit property. The suit was decreed as prayed for by granting decree for recovery of possession and injunction. As far as prayer for profits are concerned, the trial Court relegated the plaintiff for separate proceedings. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent/defendant filed an appeal. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal by reversing the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

The averments found in the plaint:

2. According to the plaintiff society, the suit building belonged to it and the same was let out to the respondent/defendant in the year 1947 for a monthly rent of Rs.10/- for accommodating its school in the suit property. The plaintiff is a Public Charitable institution running various schools and as the suit building was required for its own use, a communication was sent to the defendant on 30.04.1993, requesting them to vacate and surrender the building. The defendant sent a reply on 14.06.1993, with a false allegation that suit property was gifted to them by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a notice to quit on 11.02.1997, determining the lease and directing the defendant to surrender possession by 01.03.1997. The plaintiff in its legal notice also said that there was forfeiture of lease, as defendant denied the tile of the plaintiff. Again the defendant replied by claiming right over the property under alleged gift. In these circumstances, the above said suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession and other reliefs.

The averments found in the written statement:

3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. It was claimed by the defendant that its society approached the plaintiff in the year 1947, with a request to donate the suit building in favour of the defendant. It was further claimed that the plaintiff appreciating the laudable object of the defendant, expressed its willingness to donate the suit property to enable the defendant to run the educational institutions thereon. Thus, the defendant claimed possession of the suit property from the year 1947 and running a school for girls in the suit property. It was also claimed that Municipal Tax for the building was changed in the name of the defendant society with the co-operation of the plaintiff. The defendant also claimed that in the year 1976, the plaintiff society passed a resolution agreeing to gift the suit property to the defendant. It was also claimed that the defendant had been exercising the right of the ownership for the past 50 years and hence, it perfected its title to the said property by prescription. On these pleadings, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

Evidence let in by the parties:

4. Before the trial Court, the Secretary of the plaintiff society was examined as P.W.1 and 51 documents were marked on behalf of the plaintiff as Ex.A1 to Ex.A51. The Honorary Secretary of the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Clerk of the defendant school was examined as D.W.2. On behalf of the defendants 35 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B35.

Findings of the Courts below:

5. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the suit property was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant on a monthly rent o