Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

➢ Contrary to their contention that the plaintiff had not disclosed the assignment at an earlier point of time, it could be ascertained from the evidence on record that this plaintiff as 4th defendant in O.S.549/1989 had in his written statement (marked Ext.A-4 = Ext.B-9) pleaded that he had adopted the written statement of Pongiannan, who was the second defendant in that suit. The copy of Pongiannan's written statement is Ext.A-3 = Ext.B-8. In paragraph 14 of this written statement, Pongiannan had disclosed the assignment of Ext.A-1 on 08-05-1988 in favour of the present plaintiff. This written statement was filed sometime in October, 1990. And, in his Ext.A-4 written statement, the present plaintiff had required that a sale deed in terms of the sale agreement be executed in his favour. Cumulatively they show that the assignment of Ext.A-1 in favour of the plaintiff was disclosed even in 1990, and the contention of these defendants on this aspect does not fit in with the facts borne out by the record. Secondly, Ext.A- http://www.judis.nic.in33/59 7 suit notice, dated 14-10-1998, which was issued by the plaintiff during the pendency of the eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller, also makes a reference to the assignment of Ext.A-1 in favour of the plaintiff.

➢ Turning to O.S.87/1989, it is a suit that the plaintiff has laid on his title as a tenant of the suit property. To revisit the basic facts (not exclusively those pleaded in O.S.87/1989), the plaintiff alleges that he was both an assignee of Ext.A-1 and that he was also the tenant of the suit property, in terms of the lease granted by Dhanapal (Pongiannan's son and Radhakrishnan's Power of Attorney). In O.S.87/1989, the plaintiff rests his title to the suit as a tenant of the property, and not as an agreement holder holding possession of the property in part performance of the contract of sale. And the remedy he sought in O.S.87/1989 was that his possession as a tenant should not be disturbed except by the due process of law. Does then the character of O.S.87/1989 require that the plaintiff disclosed the assignment of Ext.A-1 in his favour? This Court considers that in the negative. The fact that he could have indicated the assignment of Ext.A-1 in Ext.B-1 http://www.judis.nic.in34/59 plaint was optional, and his failure to disclose it can never be considered fatal. And, in the very next year, Vide the written statements in O.S.549/1989, where the assignment of Ext.A-1 was material, the plaintiff indeed had disclosed it by adopting the written statement of Pongiannan.