S.A.No.818 of 2023

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

1/12

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

S.A.No.818 of 2023

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.

2/12

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

S.A.No.818 of 2023

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

3/12

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

S.A.No.818 of 2023

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

4/12

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

S.A.No.818 of 2023

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. Th