The suit for recovery of possession was deemed maintainable based on the plaintiff's title, and valuation based on Othi amount was upheld as correct despite the defendant's objections.

JUDGMENT :

P. VADAMALAI, J.

This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 12.08.2025 passed in A.S.No.45 of 2023 on the file of the Additional District Court, Paramakudi, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.10.2023 passed in O.S.No.38 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Paramakudi.

2. The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.38 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Paramakudi. The respondent is the plaintiff in that suit for directing the defendant to hand over vacant possession of suit property on receipt of Rs.9,00,000/- and directing him to pay Rs.15,000/- p.m. for use and occupation from the date of plaint till the delivery of possession.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in O.S.No.38 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Paramakudi.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property comprised in Door No.7/267A, Periyakadai Veedhi, Paramakudi Town, belonged to the plaintiff by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 12.05.2014. The defendant paid Rs.9,00,000/- to the plaintiff and in lieu of interest, he was put in possession of a portion of the building measuring 6 ¼ feet x 13 feet for running his gold jewellery business. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into unregistered deed, dated 27.08.2020. It was agreed by the defendant to hand over possession to the plaintiff on payment of above sum. Since the building became unfit for habitation, the plaintiff wanted to demolish the building and to put up new construction. He started to demolish the building from October, 2021. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the building on receipt of amount. The defendant evaded to vacate and filed the police complaint, then filed a suit in O.S.No.19 of 2022 for injunction. The defendant represented that he would vacate the building if the plaintiff pays Rs.40,00,000/-. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 04.03.2022 to the defendant. The defendant received it on 07.03.2022, but has not chosen to send a reply and vacate the building. Hence, the plaintiff filed this suit.

5. It is the case of the defendant that the suit property originally belonged to one Venkatesan. The defendant entered into Othi deed in 2005 with the said Venkatesan for three years and paid Othi amount Rs.1,60,000/-. Thereafter, the defendant had been paying additional Othi amount viz., Rs.1,40,000 on 02.02.2008. On 01.04.2013, Othi was entered into between them for Rs.5,00,000/-. The defendant has been running jewellery shop by obtaining proper permission. The Othi was renewed for Rs.14,00,000/- on 01.01.2014. On 12.05.2014, the said Venkatesan sold the suit property to the plaintiff herein, who is his own brother. After purchase, the plaintiff repaid Rs.5,00,000/- out of Rs.14,00,000/- and Othi was entered for Rs.9,00,000/- between the plaintiff and the defendant on 27.08.2020 for two years ending on 26.08.2022. One Baluchamy signed as witness. The plaintiff was doing jewellery business near the suit property. The plaintiff started to demolish the building in order to vacate the defendant, whileso the roof and southern wall of the suit property got damaged and rainwater fell in the shop. The laptop, inverter, camera and DVR worth Rs.2,00,000/- got damaged. The defendant is doing jewellery business for 16 years with possession of gold jewels worth Rs.55 lakhs. So, the defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2022 for granting injunction, not to dispossess except due process of law. The plaintiff can fi