LAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. G LINGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful Defendants in O.S. No. 609 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udhagamandalam are the Appellants.

(2.) The Respondents/Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession. The case of the Respondents/ Plaintiffs was that the property was purchased by the Respondents/ Plaintiffs from one Kappini under two registered sale deeds and prior to the sale the property was leased out by the Respondents vendor Kappini to one Gopal and the said Gopal was paying the rent till 31.5.1990 and thereafter he committed default. Therefore, a notice was sent on 24.1.1991 to the tenant Gopal and he sent a reply notice containing false allegations and also claimed title by adverse possession and there was a compromise between the vendor of the Plaintiffs/ Respondents and Gopal and Gopal agreed to vacate the premises after three years and therefore the lease period was extended up to 31.3.1993 and before that Gopal died and the Appellants who are his legal heirs refused to vacate the premises and therefore a notice was sent to the Appellants and the title of the Respondents was questioned by the Appellants. The suit was filed for declaration and recovery of possession and for mesne profits.

(3.) The Appellants/ Defendants contested the suit stating that the Respondents/ Plaintiffs cannot claim any right or title to the suit property and even the vendor of the Respondents/ Plaintiffs last their right over the suit property and therefore he could not have conveyed any valid title to the Respondents/ Plaintiffs. Gopal was the owner of the building and he was not in possession as a tenant under Kappini the vendor of the Plaintiffs and the suit property was originally owned by one A.J. Gonsalves and Gopal's uncle Palani was having a Tea shop in the suit property and was also cultivating the adjoining land and after the death of Palani, Gopal was conducting a Tea shop and carrying on the agricultural operation and there was an agreement between Gopal and A.J. Gonsalves regarding the sale of the suit property but that could not be completed and Gopal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as a owner and thereafter the Appellants continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same as owners and they have also perfected title over the suit property by adverse possession and therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot maintain a suit for declaration and recovery of possession.