9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the recovery of possession and payment of arrears of paguthy (lease rent), adverse possession claim, landlord-tenant relationship, evidence of paguthy arrangement, denial of possession, limitation period, and the duty of the court to consider the plea of limitation. Recovery of possession and paguthy arrears: The plaintiff purchased the suit property and entered into an oral paguthy arrangement with the defendant. The defendant failed to pay paguthy from 2001 onwards, leading to a legal dispute. The trial court and lower appellate court found in favor of the plaintiff, emphasizing the defendant's admission of being a paguthidar in a reply notice. The defendant's claim of adverse possession was not substantiated, and the courts decreed the suit for recovery of possession and arrears of paguthy. Adverse possession claim and lack of evidence: The defendant claimed adverse possession based on permission from the original owner's family but failed to provide substantial evidence to support this claim. The courts noted the absence of proof from the defendant, such as documents or witness testimony, to establish his possession rights. The defendant's assertion of possession dating back to 1947 was contradicted by the plaintiff's documented ownership and the lack of supporting evidence from the defendant. Landlord-tenant relationship and evidence of paguthy arrangement: The plaintiff demonstrated ownership of the property through legal documents and testified about the oral paguthy arrangement with the defendant. The defendant initially denied the paguthy arrangement but later admitted to it in a reply notice. The courts considered this admission as crucial evidence of the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff. Limitation period and duty of the court: The defendant raised the issue of limitation in the lower appellate court, arguing that the suit filed in 2003 was barred by limitation due to the termination of tenancy in 1980. However, the courts found that the plea of limitation was not raised in the initial stages and could not be considered at a later point. The judgment highlighted the importance of pleading matters like limitation in the written statement and the duty of the court to address such issues based on the evidence presented. Conclusion: The High Court confirmed the lower appellate court's decision, dismissing the second appeal and upholding the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court emphasized the established principles regarding findings of fact, the landlord-tenant relationship, and the duty of the court to consider issues like limitation when properly pleaded by the parties.
|
