JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendant before the Courts below has filed the above Second Appeal challenging the Judgement and Decree passed by the District Munsif, Mettupalayam in O.S.No.483 of 2012 confirmed by the Sub Judge, Mettupalayam in A.S.No.7 of 2021. The brief facts are as follows and the parties are referred to in the same array as before the Trial Court.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was allotted to one R.Manoranjitham, the mother of the plaintiff by the Housing Board by its order dated 06.08.1984. The said Manoranjitham was put in possession of the suit property. As per the terms stipulated in the bye-laws the Board had directed the said Manoranjitham to pay the cost of the property in monthly instalments.

3. While so, on 09.06.1965, Manoranjitham had entered into a sale agreement in respect of the suit property with one Kothandaraman and possession of the property and other records were handed over to the said Kothandaraman. The said Kothandaraman died on 05.12.1999 and after his demise, his legal representatives were not in a position to pay instalments to the Housing Board. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's mother also died on 25.10.2008, leaving behind her surviving her husband Subramaniam, sons, Prabakaran, Kannan and the plaintiff herein and daughter, Mathi. Since the legal representatives of the deceased Kothandaraman could not pay the instalments to the Housing Board and exercise the right to purchase the suit property, they had approached the legal representatives of the said Manoranjitham to receive the entire amount paid by Kothandaraman and cancel the sale agreement between Kothandaraman and Manoranjitham.

4. Therefore, the legal representatives of Manoranjitham had cancelled the sale agreement and had thereafter paid the entire instalment to the Housing Board and exercised their right to purchase the property. The legal representatives of Manoranjitham decided to get the sale deed in the name of the plaintiff.

5. It appears that while Kothandaraman was in possession of the suit property, he had inducted the defendant into possession of the suit property. The plaintiff would contend that the defendant is therefore in unlawful possession of the property. The defendant had filed a consumer complaint against the said Kothandaraman and the plaintiff's mother, which was dismissed on 24.02.1994. No appeal has been preferred against the said order. The defendant despite the demands for vacating the property has failed to do so. The plaintiff would submit that, if the properties were leased out, it would earn a monthly rent of not less than Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the above suit.

6. The defendant / appellant herein had filed a written statement inter alia contending that he had been entered into the possession of the suit property in the year 1987 as an usufructory mortgagee for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on a representation made by Kothandaraman that he is the original allotee of the suit property. It is believing the said Kothandaraman that the defendant had entered into the possession of the property. Thereafter, the defendant came to know that the said Kothandaraman was not original alottee but that it was Manoranjitham, when the eviction order has been issued by the Housing Board for non payment of instalments.

7. The defendant at the request of Manoranjitham and Kothandaraman agreed to pay the instalment amount with interest whenever notice was issued from the Board and in return the defendant had requested Manoranjitham and Kothandaraman to repay the mortgage amount as also the instalments paid to the Housing Board. Though they had promised to repay the same, they had failed to do so constraining the defendant to approach the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. However, the complaint filed by him was dismissed on the basis that the issue was purely contractual in nature and appropriate remedy was to move the Civil Court.

8. When the defendant had made arr