Second appeal against concurrent decrees for recovery of possession and damages in favour of the plaintiff-owner, who alleged the defendant occupied her premises illegally after brief permissive stay. The defendant pleaded a compromise arrangement tied to another pending appeal, but admitted it never concluded; the High Court dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.A. No.1260 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
S.A. No.1260 of 2009 and M.P.No. 1 of 2009
M.Chandrasekaran ... Appellant Vs.
G.Lyzamma .. Respondent
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2009 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2009 on the file of District Court, Udhagamandalam confirming judgment and decree dated 10.12.2006 passed in O.S.No.66 of 2007 on the file of Subordinate Court, Udhagamandalam.
For Appellant : Mr. T.K.Bhaskar For Respondent : No appearance
1/8
S.A. No.1260 of 2009
JUDGMENT
The appellant, who is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No. 66 of 2007, challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, had preferred this Second Appeal.
ranking in the suit.
for recovery of possession as well as damages. By filing written statement, the defendant contested the suit. On hearing both sides, the trial court held that the suit property belong to plaintiff, in which occupation of suit premises by the defendant is illegal one. Already the notice was issued to vacate the premises by the plaintiff, even then he has not handed over the premises. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for both relief of recovery of possession as well as damages and arrears of rent and accordingly, the suit was decreed in her favour. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in
2/8
S.A. No.1260 of 2009
A.S.No.5 of 2009 before the District Judge (Appellate Authority), Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam. The learned first appellate judge analysed the facts and evidence on record and finally concludes that the alleged compromise made by the plaintiff is false one as well as the occupation of suit premises by the defendant is illegal one and as a owner, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief, thereby confirmed the findings of the trial judge. Challenging the concurrent findings of courts below, the defendant preferred this Second Appeal.
3/8
S.A. No.1260 of 2009
proved by the defendant, but it was not properly appreciated by the courts below. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the findings of the courts below. He would further submit that based on the terms of compromise, there is no necessity to pay the rent. But the courts below failed to appreciate the same and erroneously granted the relief of damages as well as arrears of rent, as such is liable to be set aside.
admitted on the following substantial question of law :-
based on the equitable arrangement arrived at between the parties, can be the plaintiff resile from the equitable arrangement and sue for recovery of possession?
4/8
S.A. No.1260 of 2009
5/8
S.A. No.1260 of 2009
the defendant approached the plaintiff's son and occupied the suit premises without her consent, who is a true owner. Hence, she demanded to vacate the
premises, but he failed to vacate inspite of notice and as on date from the year of 2007, there is no payment of rent nor he vacated the premises inspite of the decree passed against him. Therefore, he prayed for eviction.
6/8
S.A. No.1260 of 2009
plaintiff and there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Time to hand over possession 2 months.
03.09.2024
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking/Non-speaking order rpp
To
The District Judge, Appellate Authority, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.
7/8
S.A. No.1260 of 2009
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
Pre-delivery judgment in S.A. No.1260 of 2009
03.09.2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a defendant let into possession under an alleged equitable arrangement can be sued for recovery of possession by the owner?
Whether courts below were right in awarding damages without proof?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Chandrasekaran
G.Lyzamma
T.V.Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
