IMPORTANT POINT
No relief can be given in a suit barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT (COMMON)

The Second Appeal in S.A(MD)No.501 of 2017 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2016 passed in A.S.No.30 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Court, Sivagangai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2015 passed in O.S.No.9 of 2007 on the file of Sub Court, Sivagangai.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.9 of 2007 on the file of Sub Court, Sivagangai. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money.

3. The Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.476 of 2021 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2021 passed in A.S.No.162 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Manamadurai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017 passed in O.S.No.53 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Manamadurai.

4. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.53 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Manamadurai. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment.

5. For the sake convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in O.S.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivagangai.

6. Case of the plaintiff: (Case of the appellant K.Selvamuthukumar)

The suit property belonged to the defendant. On 22.01.2000 the defendant borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and the defendant accepted that in lieu of interest the plaintiff would be in possession of the suit property. To that effect, the defendant executed an unregistered Othi deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded repayment of money from the defendant, who failed to repay. When dispute arose between them, the plaintiff presented petition before the District Collector, Sivagangai. That petition was forwarded to the Police Station, Thiruppachethi for disposal. During police enquiry, the defendant agreed about the othi loan and executed a consent letter dated 16.10.2004 in the presence of the police official and gave undertaking that he would repay the loan amount with other expenses incurred by the plaintiff regarding repair works and tax within 22.01.2005. in spite of that also, the defendant has not repaid the loan amount. Hence, the plaintiff sent legal notice dated 18.10.2006. The defendant sent reply notice dated 20.11.2006 alleging the plaintiff is in the suit property as a tenant, who paid Rs.5,000/- as advance and monthly rent is Rs.1,000/-. The contents stated in the reply notice are false. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,50,0000.

7. Case of the Defendant: (Case of respondent S.R.Krishnan)

The defendant never paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff and never executed the alleged deed. The plaintiff’s father is retired employee of revenue department and at this instance the plaintiff forged the alleged deed. The defendant stated this fact in his reply notice. The plaintiff has to prove legally that his father filed a petition to District Collector and it was forwarded for police enquiry, in the said police enquiry the defendant admitted the obtaining of loan of Rs.1,50,000/- and also executed an undertaking letter dated 16.10.2004. The unregistered Othi deed and the alleged letter executed before police officials are not legally acceptable. The plaintiff has been inducted as tenant in the suit property, which is belonged to the defendant. The plaintiff agreed to pay monthly rent at Rs.1,000/- p.m. and also paid Rs.5,000/- as advance. The relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff is only landlord and tenant. Again the plaintiff gave another petition to the District Collector and the same was forwarded for police enquiry, after police enquiry the said petition was closed on 20.10.2005. Thereafter, the plaintiff did not pay rent and the advance was adjusted from December 2005 to April 2006. The plaintiff is in arrears of rent from May 2006. The defendant issued reply legal notice to the plaintiff. Further, even prior to s