S.A(MD)No.343 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 04.03.2022

DELIVERED ON : 09.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

S.A(MD)No.343 of 2020

and

C.M.P(MD)No.4038 of 2020

Selvi

... Appellant/Appellant/1st Defendant

Vs

1.P.Dharmarajan

Managing Trustee of Anandha Samudra Grama,

Brahamana Samudhayam, 41, South Car Street,,

Nagercoil, Vadiveeswaram Village,,

Agasteeswaram Taluk,

Kanyakumari District.... 1st Respondent/1st Respondent/Plaintiff

2.Ananthan

3.Manthira Moorthi

... Respondents 2 & 3/Respondents 2 & 3/

Defendants 2 & 3

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil

Procedure Code, against the impugned judgment and decree passed by

the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in A.S.No.10 of

2019, dated 17.12.2019 confirming the judgment and decree passed by

the learned I Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil, dated

11.02.2019 in O.S.No.490 of 2011.

For Appellant

: Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

For Respondents

: Mr.C.Dhanaseelan

for R1

JUDGMENT

The first defendant is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.490 of 2011 before the I

Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil for ejectment. The suit was

decreed by the trial Court. The first defendant filed A.S.No.10 of

2019 before the Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil. The learned

Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal. As against the concurrent

findings, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the first

defendant.

3. The plaintiff has contended that the suit schedule

properties belonged to the plaintiff Samudhayam at Nagercoil

represented by its Managing Trustee. According to the plaintiff, the

1/5

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.A(MD)No.343 of 2020

suit schedule property was leased out as a site to the first

defendant. Originally, the first defendant's father-in-law had taken

the land for ground lease and constructed the buildings. After his

life time, first defendant's husband is in possession of the suit

schedule properties. The lease deed was periodically renewed. The

latest lease deed was executed on 01.01.2007 under Exhibit A1 for a

period of three years fixing a monthly rent of Rs.780/-. The lease

period had expired on 31.12.2009, and thereafter, the lease was not

renewed.

4. The plaintiff had further contended that the defendant was

not regular in payment of the monthly rent and used to pay the rent

in lump sum. In fact, the first defendant had not paid the monthly

rent for the period between January 2011 and June 2011. As per the

lease deed under Exhibit A1, the defendant is not entitled to sublet

the suit schedule properties. However, contrary to the lease

agreement, the first defendant has sublet the property to the second

and third defendants. Now, the possession of the property is with

the sub-lessees.

5. The plaintiff further contended that they issued a legal

notice on 04.07.2011 under Exhibit A2, terminating the lease on the

ground of default in payment of rent and subletting. Though the

Postal Department informed the defendant about the notice, the

defendant did not make a claim and the notice was returned as

unclaimed. Hence, the present suit for ejectment.

6. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the

plaintiff is not a registered society or a trust and hence, the

present suit is not maintainable. The defendant further contended

that he is a lessee of the site only and he has put up the

construction over the suit schedule properties. According to the

defendant, the suit schedule property was originally leased to one

Mukkia Braminan Potti and his wife Nagaveni Amma, those lessees have

put up permanent construction in the suit schedule property. In the

year 1946, the defendants husband's grand-father namely, Narayan

Nadar had purchased the super-structure along with the lease