S.A.No.534 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30..03..2023

Coram

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

Second Appeal No.534 of 2007

1. K.Balasubramaniam (Died)

2. G.Parameswari (Died)

3. K.Ambujam

4. B.Thilakavathi

5. B.Kanniappan

6. U.Malarkodi

7. R.Jayakodi

8. B.Thenmozhi

9. G.Babu

[Appellants 4 to 7 brought on record as legal representatives

of the deceased 1^st appellant viz., K.Balasubramaniam and the

Appellants 8 & 9 brought on record as legal representatives of the

deceased 2^nd appellant viz., G.Parameswari vide court order dated

15.09.2021 in C.M.P.No.11138, 11127 and 11146 of 2021 in

S.A.No.534 of 2007]

..... Appellants

-Versus-

1. Akbbar Sahib

2. Hameed Khan

3. Ansar

4. K.Anbazhagan

..... Respondents

1 of 12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.534 of 2007

Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and

decree dated 27.11.2006 made in A.S.No.27 of 2005 by the learned

Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, reversing the judgement and decree dated

24.03.2005 made in O.S.No.1403 of 1994 by the learned Principal District

Munsif, Kancheepuram.

For Appellant(s)

: Mr.R.Singaravelan,

Senior Counsel for

Mr.N.S.Sivakumar

For Respondents

: Mr.N.Rajavadivelu for RR 2 & 3

[No Appearance]

No Appearance for RR 3 & 4

JUDGEMENT

The plaintiffs are the appellants. Challenge in the Second Appeal by the

plaintiffs is against the reversal of decree of the trial court by the first appellant

court in allowing A.S.No.27 of 2005 and dismissing the suit in O.S.No.1403 of

1994.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners of the

suit schedule mentioned property. It originally belonged to the plaintiffs' father

one Subramania Mudaliar. The said Subramania Mudaliar had entered into a

registered lease agreement with one Yusuf Khan, the father of the defendants 1

to 3. This agreement was entered into on 29.03.1942. On the expiry of the said

lease, Kanakasabapathy Mudaliar Son of Subramania Mudaliar entered into an

2 of 12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.534 of 2007

other lease deed with Rajunnisa wife of Yusuf Khan on 15.05.1961. Alleging

that Rajunnisa has sub-let the property to K.Anbazhagan for running a Metal

Store under the name and style of M/s.Visalakshi Metal Store and also alleging

that Rajunnisa was pulling down the existing superstructure and attempting to

construct a new one, the present suit had been filed.

3. A written statement was presented by Rajunnisa, the 1^st defendant

admitting to the registered lease deed dated 15.05.1961. According to the

written statement, the lease deed permits putting up a superstructure and,

therefore, the 1^st defendant pleaded that putting up an additional construction is

not barred. She would state that the allegations that she defaulted in payment

of rent is false and that she is a tenant holding over, as she had been continuing

in possession of the property after the expiry of the lease. She would claim that

she is entitled to the benefits of Section 9 of The Tamil Nadu City Tenants'

Protection Act. She challenged the plaintiffs to file the suit for ejectment and

denied the sub-tenancy. Pending suit, original plaintiff – S.KrishnasamI and

the 1^st defendant – Rajunnisa passed away. Their legal representatives were

brought on record as 2 to 4 plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 respectively.

4. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for and the same was

reversed by the first appellate court.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been presented

3 of 12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.534 of 2007

by the plaintiffs. This court while admitting the Second Appeal framed the

following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the findings of the Lower

Appellate Court are correct in law in holding that

in the absence of any recital in Ex.A2 – Lease

Deed dated 15.05.1961, the defendants are

entitled to pu