Madras High Court
Ponnusamy (Died) vs Kandasamy on 1 September, 2022
Author: R.N.Manjula
Bench: R.N.Manjula
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 18.08.2022
Pronounced on 01.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
A.S.Nos.226 & 227 of 2017
and
Cross Objection No.13 of 2020
and
CMP.Nos. 9342, 9343 and 10519 of 2017
AS.No.226 of 2017
1. Ponnusamy (Died)
2. Sri Kamatchi Amman Labour Auto Spring Works,
by it Managing Partner Ponnusamy
3. P.Ayyammal
4.P.S.Saravanan (Died)
5.P.Raju
6.C.Srinivasan
7. Shanthi
8.S.Gomathi
9.S.Sanjay
10.S.Sandeepraj (Minor)
represented by his mother and natural guardian
Mrs.Gomathi.
(Appellant 7 to 10 brought on record as LRS of the
deceased 1st and 4th Appellants viz(R.Ponnusamy &
P.S.Saravanan) vide court order dated 25.02.2022,
made in CMP.Nos.17853 & 18040 of 2021
in AS.Nos.227 & 226 of 2017 and cross
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
objection No.13 of 2020 by CVKJ) ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Kandasamy
2.Sivasamy ... Respondents
Prayer :- Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI & XLI-A
of the Civil Procedure Code praying to set aside the Judgement and
Decree dated 14.12.2016 made in OS.No.74 of 2010 on file of the
Principal District Court, Namakkal.
For Appellants : Mr.M.K.Hidayatullah
For Respondents : Mr.G.Murugendran
AS.No.227 of 2017
1. Ponnusamy (Died)
2. P.Ayyammal
3. Shanthi
4.P.Raaju
5.S.Gomathi
6.S.Sanjay
7.S.Sandeepraj (Minor)
represented by his mother and natural guardian
Mrs.Gomathi.
(Appellants 2 to 7 were brought on record as LRS of the deceased
1st Appellant viz(R.Ponnusamy) vide court order
dated 25.02.2022, made in CMP.Nos.17853 & 18040
of 2021 in AS.Nos.227 & 226 of 2017 and
cross objection No.13 of 2020) ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Tamilselvan
2/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
2.Deivasigamani
3.Padmanabhan
4.Kandasamy
5.K.Sivasamy
6.The Assistant Electric Engineer,
TNEB, Village West,
Namakkal Town.
7.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
(O&M) TNEB, Valayapatti,
Namakkal Town.
8.The Superintendent Engineer,
TNEB, Paramathi Road,
Namakkal Town.
9.The Executive Engineer,
TNEB (O &M), Mohanur Road,
Namakkal Town.
10.The Chief Engineer, TNEB
Erode Regional, Erode Taluk.
11.The President, TNEB,
Cheppakkam, Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer :- Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI & XLI-A
3/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
of the Civil Procedure Code praying to set aside the Judgement and
Decree dated 14.12.2016 made in OS.No.10 of 2011, challenging the
dismissal of the same on the file of the Principal District Court,
Namakkal.
For Appellants : Mr.M.K.Hidayatullah
For Respondents : Mr.G.Murugendran for RR4 & 5
: RR6 -11 given up
CROS. OBJ No.13 of 2020
in AS.No.226/2017
1.Kandasamy
2.Sivasamy ... Cross Objectors
Vs.
1. Ponnusamy (Died)
2. Sri Kamatchi Amman Labour Auto Spring Works,
by it Managing Partner Ponnusamy
3. P.Ayyammal
4.P.S.Saravanan (Died)
5.P.Raju
6.C.Srinivasan
7. Shanthi
8.S.Gomathi
9.S.Sanjay
10.S.Sandeepraj (Minor)
represented by his mother and natural guardian
Mrs.Gomathi.
(Appellants 7 to 10 were brought on record as LRS of
4/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
the deceased 1st and 4th Appellants viz(R.Ponnusamy
& P.S.Saravanan) vide Court order dated 25.02.2022,
made in CMP.Nos.17853 & 18040 of 2021
in AS.Nos.227 & 226 of 2017 and cross
objection No.13 of 2020) ... Respondents
Prayer :- Cross Objection filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI
and Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code praying to set aside the
Judgement and Decree dated 14.12.2016 made in OS.No.74 of 2010
on file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal and thereby allow this
cross appeal in so far as relates to the use and occupational damage of
the suit properties by the defendant of Rs.1,50,000/- for the period
from 01.12.2009 to 01.04.2010 and also imposing a sum of
Rs.30,000/- p.m. From the date of suit till date of delivery of
possession to the plaintiffs towards use and occupation of the suit
property is concerned.
For Cross Objectors : Mr.G.Murugendran
For Respondents : Mr.M.K.Hidayatullah
COMMON JUDGEMENT
These appeals and cross objection were preferred challenging the
common judgement of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal
dated 14.12.2016 made in OS.No.74 of 2010 and OS.No.10 of 2011.
2. The trial in both the suits was conducted simultaneously and
by the impugned common judgement, OS.No.74 of 2010 was partly
5/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
decreed and OS.No.10 of 2011 was dismissed. Aggrieved over that,
defendants 1 to 6 in OS.No.74 of 2010 filed AS.No.226 of 2017 and
the plaintiff in OS.No.10 of 2011 filed AS.No.227 of 2017. The plaintiffs
in OS.No.74 of 2010 filed the cross objection in CROS.OBJ.No.13 of
2020 in AS.No.226 of 2017. During the pendency of both the appeals,
the 1st defendant in OS.No.74 of 2010, who was the plaintiff in
OS.NO.10 of 2011, died. The 4th defendant in OS.No.74 of 2010 also
died. Therefore, their legal representatives were brought on record as
parties to the entire proceedings.
3. The avernments of the plaint in OS.No.74 of 2010 are,
in brief, as hereunder:
The plaintiffs are respondents 1 and 2 in AS.No.226 of 2017 and
respondents 4 and 5 in AS.No.227 of 2017; it is the case of the
plaintiffs that the suit property measuring an extent of 8430 sq.ft in
S.No.136/2A is situated in Periyapatti Village, Namakkal Taluk; it
originally belonged to the 1st defendant namely R.Ponnusamy by virtue
of a sale deed dated 06.02.1981; the 3rd defendant namely
P.Ayyammal is the wife of the 1st defendant; defendants 4 and 5
namely P.Saravanan and P.Raju are the children of defendants 1 and
3; the 6th defendant namely C.Srinivasan is the brother of the 3rd
6/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
defendant; defendants 1, 4 and 5 sold the suit property in favour of
one P.Deivasigamani and one P.Tamilselvan through a sale deed dated
27.01.2003; subsequently, P.Deivasigamani relinquished his half
share in the suit property in favour of his brother - P.Tamilselvan by
virtue of a release deed dated 03.05.2006;
3.1. Thereafter, the plaintiffs purchased the suit property
through two separate sale deeds dated 06.10.2009; as per the sale
deeds dated 06.10.2009, the western portion measuring an extent of
4,215 sq.ft was purchased by the 2nd plaintiff and the eastern portion
measuring an extent of 4,215 sq.ft was purchased by the 1st plaintiff;
the plaintiffs came into possession of the suit property immediately
after the execution of the sale deeds and the plaintiffs got a joint patta
on 09.11.2009.
3.2. The 2nd defendant in O.S.No.74 of 2010 namely M/s.Sri
Kamatchi Amman Labour Auto Spring Works by its Managing Director
Ponnusamy is a concern run by defendants 1, 3 and 6 in the suit
property; they met the vendor of the plaintiffs namely P.Tamilselvan
during the month of May-2006 and requested him to let out an extent
of 7,492¾ sq.ft of the suit property for the purpose of running their
7/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
business; the vendor of the plaintiffs agreed for letting out the above
extent for a rent of Rs.30,000/- per month; a rental agreement was
also entered into between the tenants and the landlord on 02.06.2006;
in the rental agreement, it has been clearly stated that the defendants
should not make any alteration in the suit property without the
permission of the landlord; since the defendants made attempts to
alter the superstructure on 16.06.2007 without getting permission
from the vendor of the plaintiffs - P. Tamilselvan, he has filed a suit in
OS.No.459 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal
against the defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction.
3.3. In the written statement filed by the defendants in
OS.No.459 of 2007, the defendants raised a false allegation that the
sale deed executed by them on 27.01.2003 in favour of
P.Tamilselvan and P.Deivasigamani was sham and nominal; the first
defendant subsequently filed a suit in OS.No.145 of 2008 for
cancellation of the sale deed dated 27.01.2033 executed by him and
his sons in favour of P.Tamilselvan and P.Deivasigamani and also for
the relief of permanent injunction; at that stage, the plaintiffs met the
1st defendant – R.Ponnusamy and enquired him about the suit
proceedings; the 1st defendant ensured that he was only a tenant in
8/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
the suit premises and he would vacate the suit property if given some
time; the 1st defendant assured the plaintiffs that he would vacate the
suit premises immediately; only thereafter, the plaintiffs purchased the
suit property; but, subsequently, the defendants refused to hand over
possession to the plaintiffs; hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit in
OS.No.74 of 2010 for declaration, for recovery of possession and for
damages for use and occupation at the rate of RS.30,000/- per month
including past and future damages.
4. The 1st defendant filed a written statement in OS.No.74 of
2010 for himself and on behalf of defendants 2 to 6 by stating that the
sale deed dated 27.01.2003 said to have been executed by defendants
1, 4 & 5 in favour of P.Tamilselvan and P.Deivasigamani was a sham
and nominal document; the 1st defendant borrowed an amount from
the vendor of the plaintiffs namely P.Tamilselvan, for which, he and his
two sons executed the sale deed dated 27.01.2003 as a security; the
alleged release deed also would not pass on any title in favour of the
vendor of the plaintiffs; since the vendor of the plaintiffs had illegally
disconnected the service connection, they filed a suit against him and it
is pending; there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is bad
for non-joinder of necessary parties, in view of the non-impleadment
9/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
of the vendor of the plaintiffs.
5. The averments as contained in the plaint in OS.No.10 of
2011, in brief, are as follows:
This suit has been filed by the 1st defendant in OS.No.74 of 2010
for cancellation of the sale deed dated 27.01.2003. The pleadings in
OS.No.10 of 2011 are similar to the averments as contained in the
written statement filed in OS.No.74 of 2010 and the averments in the
written statement filed by the 4th defendant namely Kandasamy in
OS.No.10 of 2011 are similar to the averments made in the plaint filed
in OS.No.74 of 2010.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Judge has
framed the following issues:
“(i) OS.No.74 of 2010:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration
and recovery and possession of the properties?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for
use and occupation of sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for
the period from 01.12.2009 to 01.04.2010?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for
the use and occupation of the rent of Rs.30,000/-
p.m.,till delivery of possession?
4. Whether the 1st defendant is the absolute owner
of the suit properties? and
10/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
5. To what relief if any the plaintiff is entitled to?
(ii) OS.No.10 of 2011:
1. Whether the cause of action for the suit is
true?
2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
cancel the sale deed dated 27.01.2003?
3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit
claim?
4.Whether the 1st defendant is the absolute
owner of the suit properties?and
5.To what relief if any the plaintiff is entitled to?
7. During the course of simultaneous trial, in OS.No.74 of 2010,
on the side of the plaintiffs, four witnesses were examined as PW.1 to
PW.4 and Ex.A1 to A16 were marked. On the side of the defendants,
two witnesses were examined as DW.1 and DW.2 and no exhibits were
marked. Further one Court witness was examined as CW.1.
7.1. In OS.No.10 of 2011, on the side of both the plaintiff and
the defendants, no witnesses were examined and no documents were
marked. However, Court exhibits namely Ex.C1 and C2 alone were
marked.
8. After conclusion of the trial, OS.No.74 of 2010 was partly
decreed in respect of the relief of declaration and recovery of
possession and with regard to the relief of damages for use and
11/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
occupation, the suit in OS.No.74 of 2010 was dismissed. The other
suit in OS.No.10 of 2011 was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the
defendants in OS.No.74 of 2010 filed the appeal in AS.No.226 of 2017.
The plaintiff in OS.No.10 of 2011 filed AS.No.227 of 2017. The
plaintiffs in OS.No.74 of 2010 filed the cross objection in
CROS.OBJ.No.13 of 2020.
9. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either
side and perused the materials available on record.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants in AS.No.226 & 227 of
2017 submitted that the sale deed in favour of the vendor of the
plaintiffs in OS.No.74 of 2010 dated 27.01.2003 marked as Ex.A2, has
been executed only by way of security; on this aspect, the 4th
defendant in OS.No.74 of 2010 namely P.S.Saravanan has been
examined as DW.1 and the stamp vendor of Ex.A3 release deed dated
03.05.2006 was examined as DW.2; the evidence of D.W.1 would
prove that the 1st defendant had borrowed a loan of Rs.45,00,000/-
from the father of the plaintiffs' vendor and offered the suit property
only as a security; even though Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003 was executed
like a sale deed, the intention of the executants is not to convey the
12/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
suit property to P.Tamilselvan and P.Deivasigamani, but only to have
the suit property as a security; the learned trial Judge would have
considered the evidence on the side of the defendants in OS.No.74 of
2010 and ought to have chosen to dismiss the suit in OS.No.74 of
2010 in entirety and hence, the judgement with regard to that
portion has to be set aside.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in OS.No.74
of 2010 submitted that the sale deed-Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003 is a
registered one, which has been executed by the 1 st defendant and his
sons for a valuable consideration; having admitted the execution of the
sale deed, the appellants/ defendants in OS.No.74 of 2010 cannot
plead any other intention than the recitals in the sale deed-Ex.A2
dated 27.1.2003; in fact, the appellants/defendants in OS.No.74 of
2010 are estopped from denying the sale transaction in view of
Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act; despite the sale deed
dated-Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003 has been executed in the year 2003,
the suit in OS.No.10 of 2011 has been filed in the year 2010 and
hence, it is barred by limitation; since the respondents in AS.No.226 of
2017 namely the plaintiffs in OS.No.74 of 2010 purchased the suit
property from the owners, in whose favour, defendants 1, 4 and 5 in
13/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
OS.No.74 of 2010 had already executed the sale deed, the vendor of
the plaintiffs in OS.No.74 of 2010 is not a necessary party to the suit;
the oral evidence of DW.1 – P.S.Saravanan is in no way helpful to their
case; defendants 1, 4 and 5 in OS.No.74 of 2010 had executed the
sale deed-Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003 and conveyed title in respect of the
suit property in favour of P.Tamilselvan and P.Deivasigamani; they
executed a tenancy agreement in favour of the vendor of the plaintiffs
in OS.No.74 of 2010 in the year 2006 for the purpose of continuing
their business in the suit premises; the appellants/defendants in
OS.No.74 of 2010, by their own conduct, had chosen to execute a
tenancy agreement and now they cannot turn around and say that
they did not execute the sale deed-Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003 with an
intention to convey the title in favour of P.Tamilselvan and
P.Deivasigamani.
11.1. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in
OS.No.74 of 2010, even though the learned trial Judge was pleased to
grant the relief of declaration and recovery of possession, the prayer
for the relief of damages for use and occupation by the
appellants/defendants in OS.NO.74 of 2010 was dismissed; the
learned trial Judge had made an observation in the judgement that the
14/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
tenancy agreement was executed by the 1st defendant in OS.No.74 of
2010 along with one Ramasamy and since the said Ramasamy was not
impleaded as a party to the proceedings, the relief for damages was
denied; but, in reality, the above said Ramasamy was not a party to
the tenancy agreement, which has been marked as Ex.A4; Ex.A4
would only show that Ramasamy is the father of the 1st defendant in
OS.No.74 of 2010; the learned trial Judge misconstrued that
Ramasamy was also a party to the tenancy agreement and concluded
that the respondents in AS.No.226 of 2017 were not entitled to claim
damages in the absence of Ramasamy; since the learned trial Judge
had chosen to dismiss the relief in respect of the damages on a
misconception, that portion of the judgement of the learned trial Judge
may be reversed.
12. Point for consideration:
(i) Whether the common judgment of the trial
Judge dated 14.12.2016 is fair and proper ?
and
(ii) Whether the denial of the relief of
damages for use and occupation in respect of
the suit property by the defendants in
15/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
OS.No.74 of 2010 was on a misconception?
13. The fact that the suit property was originally belonged to
the first appellant namely R.Ponnusamy is not denied. The first
appellant- R.Ponnusamy purchased the same on 06.02.1981 by virtue
of a sale deed marked as Ex.A1. The claim of the respondents in
AS.No.226 of 2017/plaintiffs in OS.No.74 of 2010 is that the suit
property was sold by the 1st defendant and his sons namely defendants
4 & 5 by virtue of a sale deed-Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003 in favour of
P.Tamilselvan and P.Deivasigamani, who are the sons of one
Padmanaban. Subsequent to the above sale, P.Deivasigamani
relinquished his half share in the suit property in favour of his brother -
P.Tamilselvan by virtue of a release deed dated 03.05.2006. The
respondents in AS.No.226 of 2017 are the purchasers from
P.Tamilselvan and they purchased half share each by two separate sale
deeds both dated 06.10.2009, which are available as Ex.A11 and
Ex.A12.
14. The appellants have come out with a case that the sale deed
Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003 was not executed with an intention to sell the
suit property in favour of P.Tamilselvan and P.Deivasigamani, but it
16/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
was executed only as a security for the loan amount availed by the
deceased 1st appellant from Padmanaban, who is the father of
P.Tamilselvan and P.Deivasigamani. No explanation has been given on
the side of the appellants as to why the sale deed-Ex.A2 dated
27.01.2003 was executed in favour of the sons of Padmanaban
instead of a mortgage deed. Even if the sale deed was executed as a
security, it could have been at least as a conditional sale deed. But, the
avernments in Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003 would only show that it is a
pucca sale deed and there is no condition attached to it to pass on the
title in favour of the predecessors of the plaintiffs.
15. It is needless to state that Section 91 the Indian Evidence
Act deals with the exclusion of oral evidence by documentary evidence.
Once the written instrument is produced and the executants accept its
execution, then the presumption will go in favour of the predecessors
and the terms of sale deed should be presumed to be true. So, in the
case on hand, defendants 1, 4 and 5 did not deny the execution of the
sale deed Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003. Their only contention is that the
sale deed Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003 was not executed with an intention
to convey the title of the suit property.
17/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
16. It is not the contention of the appellants that there is a fraud
or coercion committed by the predecessors in title and that they were
defrauded or cheated. It was not pleaded by the appellants that the
sale deed Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003 was obtained from them by making
any misrepresentation. The sale deed-Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003 was
executed by the executants namely defendants 1, 4 and 5 in OS.No.74
of 2010 knowing pretty well that it is a sale deed. For a sale deed,
which was executed in the year 2003, the case was filed in the year
2010 to cancel the same. The plaint avernments in OS.No.74 of 2010
also show that the 1st appellant- R.Ponnusamy also filed OS.No.145 of
2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal against Padmanaban,
P.Tamilselvan and P.Deivasigamani to cancel the sale deed Ex.A2
dated 27.01.2003. Since the 1st appellant namely R.Ponnusamy was a
party to the sale deed Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003, the cause of action
would start from 27.01.2003 itself. Despite the same, the suit in
OS.No.10 of 2011 was not filed within three years, but, it has been
filed in the year 2010 and hence, the suit in OS.No.10 of 2011 filed by
the 1st appellant- R.Ponnusamy is barred by limitation.
17. The one and only material available in support of the
appellants is the evidence of DW.1. During the cross examination of
18/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
DW.1, who is the 4th defendant in OS.No.74 of 2010, he accepted that
both the sale deeds dated 06.10.2009 were executed and registered in
a manner it has to be done in the Sub Registrar office. There is no
rebuttal proof available on record to show that the sale deed Ex.A2
dated 27.01.2003 was executed only with an intention to offer them as
a security. The appellants have not produced any documents to show
that they had paid interest to the alleged loan availed by the deceased
1st appellant from the father of the vendor of the respondents in
AS.No.226 of 2017. On the other hand, the respondents in AS.No.226
of 2017 have proved that the deceased 1st appellant namely
R.Ponnusamy had executed a tenancy agreement in favour of the
vendor of the respondents in AS.No.226 of 2017 on 02.06.2006 and
later extended it on 25.06.2007.
18. It is clearly stated in Ex.A4 that the 1 st appellant –
R.Ponnusamy was conducting business in the name and style M/S.Sri
Kamatchi Amman Labour Auto Spring Works. In the tenancy
agreement, it has further been stated that the it was executed on
02.6.2006 between P.Tamilselvan and R.Ponnusamy. R.Ponnusamy-
1st appellant had been described as the son of Mr.Ramasamy.
However, the learned trial Judge misconstrued that Ramasamy was
19/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
also a party to the tenancy agreement and made an observation that
without impleading Ramasamy, the respondents in AS.No.226 of 2017
ought not to have claimed the relief of damages for use and occupation
of the premises. As per Ex.A4- lease agreement, the rent for the
premises was agreed at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month. Had Ex.A2
sale deed dated 27.01.2003 been executed only by way of security,
there is no need to execute Ex.A4 lease deed dated 02.06.2006. The
conduct of the 1st appellant- R.Ponnusamy and his sons would only
show that they had sold the suit property in favour of P.Tamilselvan
and P.Deivasigamani. However, they continued to be in possession of
the suit property as tenants and executed the lease agreement Ex.A4
dated 02.06.2006 with P.Tamilselvan.
19. The predecessors of the plaintiffs in OS.No.74 of 2010
namely P.Tamilselvan and P.Deivasigamani got the title in respect of
the suit property by virtue of a sale deed Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003. One
of the predecessors by name P.Deivasigamani relinquished his half
share in favour of his brother P.Tamilselvan by virtue of a release deed
dated 03.05.2006. Since the appellants failed to prove that the sale
deed-Ex.A2 27.01.2003 was executed only for the purpose of security,
they cannot claim that the release deed Ex.A3 dated 03.05.2006
20/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
executed between the predecessors of the respondents in AS.No.226
of 2017 was invalid. At the risk of the repetition, it was reiterated that
the suit filed by the 1st appellant- R.Ponnusamy was not within the
period of limitation and the very suit itself namely OS.No.10 of 2011
was barred by limitation.
20. At any rate, the appellants did not have any title in respect
of the suit property. Having passed on the title by knowing pretty well
that they are executing the sale deed-Ex.A2 dated 27.01.2003 in
favour of P.Tamilselvan and P.Deivasigamani, the 1st appellant filed
the previous suit in OS.No.145 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court,
Namakkal by claiming that the sale deed was sham and nominal. The
plaintiffs in OS.No.74 of 2010 purchased the suit property from the
original owner namely P.Tamilselvan by virtue of two sale deeds
Ex.A11 & Ex.A12 both dated 06.10.2009. Since the plaintiffs have
acquired title to the suit property, the learned trial Judge has rightly
granted the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. The lease
in favour of the appellants was not renewed for any subsequent period.
Further, the appellants denied their tenancy, rather sought to claim
ownership in the suit property, which was already disposed of by them
in favour of the predecessors of the plaintiffs.
21/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
21. Hence, it is right for the learned trial Judge to grant the relief
of declaration and recovery of possession. Since the vendor of the
plaintiffs in OS.No.74 of 2010 had passed on their title in respect of the
suit property in favour of them, the vendor of the plaintiffs is not a
necessary party to the suit filed by the plaintiffs in OS.No.74 of 2010
against the appellants. So, the suit filed in OS.No.74 of 2010 is not bad
for non joinder of necessary party. However, the learned trial Judge
disallowed the relief for damages for use and occupation of the suit
property by the appellants on a misconception that Ramasamy was
also a party to the tenancy agreement.
22. The tenancy agreement was wrongly read by the learned
trial Judge and hence, it was misconstrued that Ramasamy was also a
party to the tenancy agreement. In fact, Ramasamy is the father of the
1st appellant- R.Ponnusamy and the description made in the lease
agreement-Ex.A4 dated 02.06.2006 was misconstrued and
misinterpreted by the learned trial Judge and because of that, the
relief for damages was denied. Since the mistake on the part of the
trial Court is apparent, the cross objection filed by the plaintiffs in
OS.No.74 of 2010 needs to be allowed. In view of the above
22/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
discussions, the appeals filed by the appellants in AS.Nos.226 & 227 of
2017 are liable to be dismissed and the cross objection in
CROS.OBJ.No.13 of 2020 is to be allowed.
In the result, the Appeals in AS.Nos.226 & 227 of 2017 are
dismissed and the cross objection in CROS.OBJ.No.13 of 2020 is
allowed and the Judgement and Decree dated 14.12.2016 made in
OS.No.74 of 2010 on file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal, is
modified and the suit in OS.No.74 of 2010 is decreed in entirety.
Time 3 months. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petitions are also closed.
01.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/ Non Speaking
RS/jrs
23/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.226 & 227/2017 & Cros.obj.No.13/2020
R.N.MANJULA, J.
RS/jrs To The Principal District Court, Namakkal.
A.S.Nos.226 & 227 of 2017 and Cross Objection No.13 of 2020 and CMP.Nos.9342, 9343 &10519 of 2017 10.09.2022 24/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis