IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA S.A.No.818 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.25619 of 2023 Mrs. Amsaveni … Appellants Vs

1.Raghunathan

2.Mrs.R.Sivagami . . . Respondents Prayer:- Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgement and decree of the learned District Judge and Appellate Authority of the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in A.S.No.12 of 2013 dated 29.10.2020 reversed the Judgement and Decree of the learned Sub Judge of Nilgiris Udhagamandalam in O.S.No.116 of 2011 dated

12.03.2013.

For Appellant : Mr.J.Franklin For Respondents : Mr.K.J.Bratheesh

JUDGEMENT

The defendant who has not entered the witness box nor cross-

examined the plaintiffs is the appellant before this Court. The defendant/appellant seeks to challenge the judgement and decree passed by the learned District Judge and Appellate Authority of the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in A.S.No.12 of 2013 in and by which the learned Judge had reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge of Nilgiris Udhagamandalam in O.S.No.116 of 2011. The brief facts are as follows and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.

Plaintiff's Case:

2. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for recovery of possession and for past damages of a sum of Rs.2,000/- and for future damages of Rs.2,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of delivery.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is a residential premise bearing D.No.32H, Ranganayagi Illam at Church Hill Lane, Udhagamandalam. The defendant is the sister of the 1st plaintiff and the plaintiffs are husband and wife. It is their case that the 1st plaintiff that he had purchased the suit property under a sale deed dated 11.01.1979, registered as document no.57/1979. The property was purchased by both the 1^st plaintiff as well as his brother, Sathanandan along with other properties. Thereafter, they had partitioned the property under a compromise final decree in I.A.No.114/1988 in O.S.No.91/1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Udhagamandalam.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that from the date of this judgment and decree, the 1st plaintiff alone was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendant is the 1st plaintiff's sister and she was given marriage to one Ramachandran, who was serving the military establishment.

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that originally the defendant was residing at Mayfield Cottage, Nilgiris and since she had to vacate that cottage, the 1^st plaintiff had permitted the defendant to occupy the suit schedule property. The defendant's occupation was under a leave and license granted by the 1st plaintiff and from the date of the leave and license the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant’s son had purchased the adjacent property from the plaintiff under a sale deed dated 20.04.2005 and had constructed a house thereupon.

6. The plaintiffs would submit that under a registered settlement deed dated 16.03.2011, the 1st plaintiff had bequeathed the properties in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. Since the plaintiffs require the suit schedule premises, they had issued a legal notice dated 11.04.2011, revoking the leave and licence and they had demanded the defendant to vacate and surrender vacant possession of the suit property. To this, the defendant had sent a reply dated 08.06.2011, contending false statements. Therefore, the plaintiff had filed the above suit for the relief stated supra.

Defendant's Case:

7. The defendant had filed a written statement inter alia denying the sale deed dated 11.01.1979 in favour of the 1^st plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that the alleged vendor under a sale deed dated 11.01.1979 is the grandfather of the 1st plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant’s grandfather Subban had several joint family properties which included the suit schedule properly. After the death