Sri P G Bhaskaran vs M/S Mohammed Musa Sait Wakf on 17 February, 2009

IN was 2:33 COURT or xanuamaxn, AT 3gxa3;§g3 ",

natea this the 17" day of FebrQg£y,'2fiG§ '

BEFORE"
:33 KON'BLE MR.JUsrIcE i_RA33xA&3;swaMY\ v 

R F A No 35% 9f éo07',:§ "V"

BETwEEN:

1.

Sri P G Bhaska£afi,_
3/9 late”? Gopaiang
aged abcu§ ?9*year3,’

Sri B gi;mé2.g§mg;;.,;

axe 5x:~§ Q Ehaskarflfi} ,
a§éd,§bout?48 years, “”

IN}

Bathapraséfitlyugésiding
flt’Damu’S*Afi§c Garage,
NO.7}a{GldfNO;é}”

‘RichnmMtiVRQad,

“?.Bangaioré”5EQ*S25. Appeilafit

{I}

‘V, {B§ $:i.K SK Fonnappa W Rdvacateb
Rfidfi

M15; Mbhafimed Husa Sait wakf,

4 »,Repré5e%ted herain by its
‘, Mufiavaiii, M Muneér Sait,
‘F’Sfo’late M Iamaii Bait,
“N@}138, Gzeams Road,

Chennai, Tamil Hadu. Res§on$ent

Sr: 5 A Majeeb é S M fiesargi ~ §dv5.}
Sri S J Chouta — Advacate)

?hi3 ReguiarT ?irst Appeal is fileé ufs 9%

‘Q

{Kw Order 41 Rule i of CPC againsi the judgment

and decrea dated 15/11£2§@S pasged in Q S

Q

Rule 1 Sofie sf Civil ?r0c@duze in resfiefit WQE

fiii:gT writtaa gtatement within the ?eti§$lafiéd*

‘

U3

iime has helé that it i

ends ef justica, CQ§ft 5&3 fgafi ‘éifiéretiagéty

n0t_mandatdé§*éna°ifi.thé

pawer to ailsw the. party ,tc fiié _writtsnV*

{L1

tatement. The said ju$§m§n§ 1% :é}i@§ upon by
tha aP@eliant ta %$bstfih§iéi§;thiS ci%i% and t0
apply the same in t§@ ;n§§éfit-Af§$kifEh&x guit wig institutefi, the matter will

g fiayéav”tQ~V bé; pQ3t@d far heating after the

V_ when ~i:_ is §o3ted far hearing, the cQur$ «ii

ccmfileti¢fi bf all gmvceadings Gf evidence etC.,

€”‘
¢._’
P_:

*§fd9ide fuliest Gppo:tunity’ t@T bath the parties

égd aftex the comgletian cf the hearing, than

manly it wiii be poatad far judgment. The

regpeciiva smunseig hava gat right to make their
gubmigsiens wfien thé matter is posted fer hearing

afifi while tha mattan is bainq heard, Ehfi

K

L4 . ‘
. fiwl
IQ ”

gar High C$art, E have no h&$itation in~@e§df

that gnce the case is reserved fer jfidgmént} i

is not ogen for the paréieg to get it pQStad”fQf

furthar h@a:inq either by filgfig mem§afGr~b§in§z

ageken to at for furthe£ hea§ing c:’a;§1i§at:anV

rm

er the same. In ¥:ew cf ifia Ebsve; E hfild that
the mama fii&d by €M@*agpé§iafifiaQn_30/§f20§8 is

to be :ejecte§”3nd it is ficaétfiihgfiy rejected.

cf fi&e fiaae are that Gne late P

° t@néat’~unde: raspondant on a
m0athiy*xrent ‘0f\’fis}iGGOfm. iegai matice was

iagaéé to “~;ate ‘Damodaran on SIS/E999 duly

V”t§fmimétifigg the tenancy. it was retuxaed with

A.éndor3ém@fit*_}’party d@c@a3@d’. On makifiq

efiqniries git is learnt that P Bamodaran died

*,aGma::iéd and bag not ieft any legal heirs. it

fl”%m”:aaznt ihat premigas are in Qscupatien 9f the

éggailants. Natica amas issuad in: Sham: as thay

weze in umauthorizefi @ccu§ati0a and were

iliegai sub tenants which was terminatafi on the
expiry of 30f6f1999 by notice dated 18f5/19$?

fickacwiedged by tfie defendants on 21f5f1§§9. ?h@

°’\

I0

a§@eliant fie.1 had sent an untenabia re@i§;§ai§fi’

28f5f1999. Ehe a@§&ll&§tS are iggfiie fG: $afi

compengationfdamages for fwféngfu; g.fiseV’*and

mccupaiian 9f the gremises 53 P3.E/?Hp@r:sqfiare,

ft., aad the rent will be R3,?2,§GSf+ p3rKm5nth.

6. The ci@f@ndant:~3* ‘f_i1.ed their fgwritten

statement cQntendi§g”-that,.fifie*_f&3pQnd&nt filed

the Emit by 3up§;;d~§afi; and [5ugge3ti$mf&l3i

i.a., by &Jpgf¢s3iflg{ the” $aieriai facts. The

defanfiants Vé&mit° that _the plaintiff is a Wakf
board tbs VproviSiQfiE_ of K R C Est are not

appEicabie ‘*_t¢ the pl&intiff. The schedule

‘”§;o§@r%§ Mwas takan by sna Mr.P Qamadaran as a

Aul@3sée “ab@ut_}48 yeazs age for 48 years. flfter

@x§;ry.o§ the geriad, the p;aintiff raquestafi him

.t0 éacate tha pcrtisn of th@ praperty an

” hum$hitari3n greund. Tha said Bamodaran vacat§d

number Q5 nen–:eSid€ntial Qremises and leased om:

the same fax axarbitant advafic§ and zent and
cheated the :%fi£i P Damadaran. flaring he Eifé

tima of P Bamsfiaran he had aatezed ijtg 3

1}

partnershig wit¥ his own brother 9_ffihagga:&n’

and dsing the business jointly. §h§’€e;fis_&nau

Conéitiofig $5 the partnezshig waSN€© Cdntinue Lei

€V9f. ?he said Bamodaran axécuted wig; 0?e$y€hé*

scfiedule pr@pe:ty’ in fafisfir of Wfirsp: fieféndant

filonq with Eis ,””§Qh *_ ithé= * Eecoad

defendant}bequeathingTthe_?» wjgshare is: favcur

of first a§$,_Se$5§d=;déi€rd§n:Q’ Hence the

defendants Vafé5§i§ _i§wfiuLf passassian Gf the

y’w§fifi qugstikmi of gubwieaae afid

~_dQa$ not arise. For the

last 48 years tfia défendamtg are paying the tax,

F

kha§a”_wa3 =::an5f;r3ed in the name of ‘he

V”def§fi§éhtC_ ?he plaintiff has me maral or legal

7,r;ghi_ft9″ a.1

aim the suit property. Hence the

défendantg grayed far &ismissal 0f the suit.

5: Sn the bagig of the aforesaid pl&adings,

*:He~C@urt belaw framed tha foiiawing i$su§$:

ii} §heth@r plaintiff firevas that the

fiefendants were their ténantg in

A

,am,CfVthé.v;éw_taat the trial caurt ha$ aasessed

– gerggeciivéx ané has some to right conciusions.

‘Wfheeim fi?n@d %ud ment i3 erfectlv ‘u$tifiefi and
V’ .’ .3 ..

17

pasaing Grder an I A £0.11 filed mK$ 151 Caée Cf

,).

C~vii Pr®cedur@ rfw Sectian 85 cf ?akf_fiétfli9_¢_’

k’
Ln

far dismissal 0f the suit on th@ grows; that theu

Court has no jurisdictifin fr@med_tw§,pQifit3kfog_
considaratian and answezed_them in favofir cf fihé

reapandent herein. Once “$56 0:§Gr’~is fpaased

rejecting the very cénfientiéfi, ifir;s not sign fer
the appeliant ts :aise the samezfigfound ix: this

appeal since it is binding ch thém} Hence the

,byu_3he appellant as ta

Saifi gr0u3d”,takéfi

maintainability *sénfict° be’ uphéld. There is no

1nfirmiiy” in the “f;n£ing’ of ihe trial court an

1 ;s
€5,H£f;er fecfinsidering tha fifltifé matter, 3

s

. :matazial$ an reccrd in proper

18

apgeiiafitfi fiffi granted threg months £ifie{w:¢;

vacate and hand over the vacant possafiaiafi Of the

suit 3chedui* pregerty to the respQndafi:. ”