JUDGMENT :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

This Appeal Suit is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 64 of 2011, challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry. By that judgment, the trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession, with costs, and directed the defendant to vacate and hand over possession of the suit property within one month.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they were before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, having purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 26.08.2005, executed by the power agent, Clement Joseph Catchirayar, and registered as Document No.4489 of 2005 with the Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was originally inducted as a tenant under the power agent of her vendor. Immediately after purchasing the property, the plaintiff informed the defendant of the purchase and called upon him to vacate and hand over possession, as she required the property for her own occupation. The defendant sought three months and assured that he would thereafter pay the rent directly to the plaintiff. However, he neither vacated the property nor paid any rent to her. It is further alleged that the defendant had been a chronic defaulter even before the plaintiff's purchase.

4. The plaintiff would further state that her vendor was acting as the original owners' power of attorney and that a further power of attorney had been executed in favour of her father, Muthusamy. Based on the same, the plaintiff intended to purchase the property and hence the plaintiff invested substantial amounts to carry out construction on the suit property and thereafter obtained the registered sale deed from the original power of attorney. The defendant is the husband of the plaintiff's sister. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was permitted to occupy the property, even before the execution of the sale deed in her favour, solely to assist his wife's (the plaintiff’s sister’s) family. Taking advantage of the relationship, the defendant subsequently asserted a claim to partition on behalf of his wife, as though the property belonged to the plaintiff's father, Muthusamy.

5. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 25.01.2006, calling upon the defendant to vacate and hand over possession. The defendant replied dated 11.05.2006, disputing the plaintiff's title and claiming that he had erected the superstructure on the suit property. The defendant also instituted O.S.No.65 of 2006 before the II Additional District Munsif, Puducherry, against Muthusamy and Ramamurthy, alias Bhaskar, the father and husband of the plaintiff, respectively, without impleading the plaintiff as a party. The plaintiff alleges that these proceedings were initiated with the dishonest intention of grabbing the property and that the defendant also threatened her with serious consequences.

6. It is further pleaded that, during the pendency of the dispute, the defendant approached the plaintiff for an amicable settlement, and the plaintiff expressed her willingness to resolve the matter. However, the defendant continued to refuse to vacate the premises. The plaintiff therefore issued further notices dated 16.01.2010 and 24.03.2011. Although the earlier notice dated 25.01.2006 was replied to, disputing her title, no reply was sent to the final notice dated 24.03.2011. The plaintiff states that, despite her prolonged efforts to settle the dispute amicably, the defendant failed either to vacate the property or to recognise her title, compelling her to institute the present suit.

7. On the above averments, the plaintiff has sought a declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, a consequential direction for the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession thereof, and the costs of the suit.

8. The defendant denied the plainti