The captioned second appeal is filed by the

unsuccessful

defendant

feeling

aggrieved

by

the

concurrent findings of the Courts below in decreeing the

suit filed by plaintiff directing the defendant herein to

handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule

property.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred

as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit

seeking relief of recovery of possession of the suit

3

schedule property. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute

owner of the suit schedule property bearing site No.63/33

in Sy. No.66/1. The plaintiff asserts title on the basis of

Hakku

Pathra

bearing

No.97/87-88

issued

by

the

Tahasildar, Somwarpet. The plaintiff claims that the

defendant, who had friendly relationship with the plaintiff,

requested to provide accommodation for a period of one

year. At her request, the plaintiff permitted the defendant

to reside in the suit schedule premises for a period of one

year as a licensee, which is commencing from 01.01.2011.

The plaintiff has further pleaded that he has requested

defendant

to

hand

over

vacant

possession.

Since

defendant did not vacate the suit schedule premises,

plaintiff was compelled to issue legal notice on 08.03.2012

revoking the license and consequently, seeking possession

of the suit schedule property.

4. The defendant on receipt of summons contested

the proceedings and stoutly denied the entire averments

made in the plaint. At para No.4(b) of the written

4

statement, the defendant admitted that plaintiff is the

owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant

claimed that he is in possession of the suit premises for

last nine years on the basis of monthly rent at the rate of

Rs.1,000/- per month. The defendant further claimed that

plaintiff has offered to sell suit premises and accordingly,

executed an agreement of sale dated 15.07.2005.

Therefore,

defendant

claimed

that

now

she

holds

possession as an agreement holder. Therefore, the present

suit is not maintainable. It is also contended that

possession of the defendant is protected under the

provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.

5. The plaintiff in support of his contention led in

evidence by examining himself as P.W.1 and examined one

independent witness as P.W.2 and adduced documentary

evidence vide Exs.P.1 to P.8, while defendant examined

herself as D.W.1 and examined three witnesses as D.Ws.2

to 4 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.D.1 to

D.30.

5

6. The Trial Court based on oral and documentary

evidence led in by both parties answered issue Nos.1 and 5

in the affirmative while issue Nos.2 to 4 answered in the

negative. The Trial Court held that plaintiff has succeeded

in proving that defendant is a licensee under the plaintiff.

7. The Trial Court while considering issue No.1 has

recorded a finding that defendant having claimed that she

is a tenant in the suit premises has not led any evidence.

No documents are produced indicating that there is a rent

agreement between the parties. The Trial Court also found

that no rent receipts are produced. The contention of

defendant that in view of sale agreement executed by the

plaintiff in favour of the defendant, the relationship of

landlord and tenant would come to an end and therefore,

the defendant would assume a status of a prospective

purchaser and was also not accepted by the Trial Court.

The Trial Court, while dealing with the agreement to sell,

which is marked at Ex.D.28, has come to the conclusion

6

that the said document cannot be looked into for want of

registration. The document admittedly being unregistered

would not come to the aid of the defendant and her

defence based on the suit agreement cannot be looked

into. It is in this background, the Trial Court having

meticulously examined oral and documentary evidence led

in by both parties has come to the conclusion that

defendant was put in possession as a licensee and

therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to