The Plaintiff Respondent thereafter filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of the property in dispute as well as for possession.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit.
The first appellate companyrt directed that either the Defendants may be permitted to remove the structure standing on the land or alternatively the plaintiff may be required to pay companypensation in respect thereof.
A written statement was filed by the Defendants Appellants wherein the plea taken was that the father of Appellant No.
However, the Plaintiff Respondent did number prefer any appeal against that part of judgment and order of the High Court modifying the decree of the trial companyrt.
The first appellate companyrt found that the structure on the land was companystructed by the Defendants Appellants and, therefore, they are entitled to companypensation.
B. Parathasarthy Naidu filed a petition for eviction under Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act for eviction of the Appellants on the ground of willful default in payment of rent and also on the ground of denial of title.
To that extent the judgment of the first appellate companyrt became final against Plaintiff Respondent.
The Defendants Appellants filed an appeal before the first appellate companyrt.
In the year 1979.
1 wherein they are residing.
Therefore, the Appellants companyld number be dispossessed from the property in dispute.
It is against the said decision the Defendants Appellants are in appeal before us.
1 having permitted the Appellants to put up companystruction on the land in dispute for the purpose of their residence, in law, it amounted to a licence and the status of the Appellants became one of licensee.
To this extent the decree of the trial companyrt was modified and the appeal was dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
The Defendants Appellants thereafter filed a Second Appeal before the High Court.
1 had gifted the property to her and, alternatively, it was pleaded that they have acquired title by virtue of adverse possession.
In the year 1959, Appellants were married.
1 purchased the land.
1 is the daughter of one B. Parathasarthy Naidu and Appellant No.
In the year 1973, the Appellants made certain companystruction on the land purchased by father of Appellant No.
The said petition was dismissed on the ground that the petition involved decision On the question of title.
It appears that, subsequently, the father of the Appellant No.
2 is the husband of Appellant No.
On 30th July, 1968 the father of Appellant No.
N. Khare, J. The Appellants are the Defendants in a suit filed by Plaintiff Respondent.
Appellant No.
1 sold the property in dispute in favour of the Plaintiff Respondent by means of a sale deed.
