GANESA NAICKEN Vs. ARUMUGHA NAICKEN
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
Rajamannar, C.J. -
(1.) These two appeals arise out of a suit filed by the respondent for a declaration of his title to the property described in the plaint schedule consisting of a site in Rayappapuram in the town of Tiruppur and the superstructure thereon. The case of the respondent as set out in the plaint was that in the year 1925 he had submitted a petition to the Government to obtain a sale of a vacant site in Hemingway Street in Tiruppur and that while that petition was pending he came to know that vacant sites would foe granted by Government on dharkhast in Rayappapuram and, apprehending that if he put in an application for one of such vacant sites he might not be granted any site, because he had already applied for a site in Hemingway Street, he made the appellant, who was a son of his sister and also his brother-in-law apply for a site in Rayappapuram, that eventually a site was granted on dharkhast to the appellant in December 1931, that subsequently he sunk a well and constructed a house with his own moneys and ever since he was in possession and enjoyment of the property paying the municipal taxes, etc., in respect of it, that at no time did the appellant possess or enjoy the property, that it was only sometime before the institution of the suit that the defendant attempted to set up title in himself, that though the grant was in the name of the appellant, it was he, the plaintiff, who was entitled to the site as the appellant was only a benamidar for him and it was, therefore, necessary that the court should declare his title to the property.
(2.) The appellant denied that the application made by him for the grant of a site was on behalf, and for the benefit, of the respondent. He also denied that the well was dug and the house was built with the funds of the respondent. He stated that he incurred the expenses for them. He further alleged that the respondent on account of his intimate relationship was managing the property on his behalf but he had no title to the property. A few months prior to the suit, the appellant approached him with a request to sell the house for Rs. 1,000 and even prepared the sale deed to be executed by him but he would not agree to sell the house and the suit was really an attempt on the part of the respondent to obtain the property unlawfully. This was the case of the appellant.
(3.) The learned District Munsif of Tiruppur who tried the suit held that the site belonged to the defendant appellant but that the house was built by the plaintiff- respondent at his own costs. He further held that the respondent would be entitled to a charge on the appellant's interest in the suit property in the sum of Rs. 1,000 representing the moneys spent by him, the respondent, for the construction of the house.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.