JUDGMENT :

P. Vadamalai, J.

This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree, dated10.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.104 of 2021 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Srivilliputtur.

2.The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.104 of 2021 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Srivilliputtur. The respondent is the plaintiff in that suit.

3.The respondent/plaintiff, through her power agent, filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property and for mesne profits.

4.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

5.The brief facts are as below:

(a) The case of the plaintiff (respondent herein ) :-

The plaintiff has purchased the suit property from one S.Shanmugam by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 18.02.2008. The plaintiff let out the suit property to one Praveenkumar and Amaravathi by executing an othi deed for Rs.3,00,000/-. As there was a dispute between them, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.32 of 2015 before the Principal Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, for redemption. On compromise, the said Praveenkumar and Amaravathi vacated and handed over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on 21.06.2016. While the facts being so, the defendant created a forged rental agreement, dated 02.05.2016 and filed a false case in O.S.No.178 of 2016 for an injunction not to vacate the defendant except through due process of law. The said suit was dismissed as ‘no instruction’. In fact, after getting possession on 21.06.2016, the plaintiff let out the suit property to one Kaleeswaran, who vacated the premises on 21.02.2018. On 21.02.2018, the plaintiff found the lock of the door was broken down and on enquiry, the defendant, being an advocate, trespassed into the suit premises. So, the plaintiff lodged a police complaint, then she sent a complaint to the Special Cell of the Chief Minister and higher police officials. As there was no proper action, the plaintiff filed Crl.O.P(MD)No.3698 of 2018 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, in which direction was issued for action. The defendant influenced the officials and managed not to take further action. Thereafter, the plaintiff lodged a complaint before the Bar Council of Tamilnadu in D.C.C.No.450 of 2018. The Bar Council enquired and passed an order dated 13.01.2020, debarring the defendant from practicing for two years and also directed the defendant to hand over possession of the suit property within six weeks. The defendant has also filed a suit in O.S.No.255 of 2017 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur as against one Athinarayananpillai and his son for an injunction not to vacate him from the house in VIP Sathuragiri Nagar, as if the defendant is residing as a tenant thereat. There are a number of police complaints pending against the defendant in various police stations. The defendant is not a law-abiding man. The defendant is a trespasser on the suit property. The plaintiff issued a legal notice, but there has been no reply from the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff, through her power agent, has filed the suit.

(b)The case of the defendant:-

The plaintiff made false averments in the plaint. The defendant is a tenant under a rental agreement, dated 02.05.2016, and he has been paying monthly rent without any default. The plaintiff and the said Praveenkumar and Amaravathi collusively filed the suit in O.S.No.32 of 2015 and alleged that possession of the suit property was handed over on 21.06.2016 upon compromise. The defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.178 of 2016 for injunction to not evict except under due process of law. In that suit, the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to a handwriting expert in respect of the defendant’s signature; later, the petition was not pressed. So, the rental agreement is not a created one. The defendant is residing in the suit property as a tenant without giving any trouble to a