Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute over possession of a property in Paramakudi. The plaintiff, R.Rajasekaran, purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 12.05.2014. The defendant, S.R.Balachandar, was in possession of a portion of the building (6 ¼ feet x 13 feet) for running a gold jewellery business. The parties executed an unregistered deed dated 27.08.2020, under which the defendant paid Rs.9,00,000/- to the plaintiff, and in lieu of interest, was allowed to occupy the portion. The defendant agreed to hand over possession on repayment of the amount. The plaintiff wanted to demolish the building as it became unfit for habitation and requested the defendant to vacate on receipt of Rs.9,00,000/-. The defendant refused and filed a suit for injunction (O.S.No.19 of 2022). The plaintiff then issued a legal notice on 04.03.2022 and filed the present suit for possession and mesne profits. The trial court decreed the suit, directing the defendant to hand over vacant possession on receipt of Rs.9,00,000/- and to pay Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of plaint till delivery. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendant filed the second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the concurrent findings were based on evidence. The unregistered deed was a license, not a lease, and the defendant was liable to vacate. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Interference with concurrent findings - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court, as no substantial question of law arose. The courts below correctly held that the unregistered Othi deed was a license, not a lease, and the defendant was liable to vacate on receipt of the deposit amount. (Paras 1-16) B) Property Law - License vs Lease - Othi Deed - The unregistered deed dated 27.08.2020 was construed as a license because the defendant was allowed to occupy a portion of the building in lieu of interest on Rs.9,00,000/- paid to the plaintiff. The defendant did not acquire any exclusive possession or right to remain after repayment. (Paras 4-10) C) Property Law - Mesne Profits - Use and Occupation Charges - The trial court directed the defendant to pay Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of plaint till delivery of possession, which was upheld by the appellate court. The High Court affirmed this as reasonable compensation for use and occupation. (Paras 2, 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the unregistered Othi deed dated 27.08.2020 creates a lease or a license, and whether the defendant is liable to vacate the suit property on receipt of Rs.9,00,000/-.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court in A.S.No.45 of 2023 dated 12.08.2025, confirming the trial court decree in O.S.No.38 of 2022 dated 30.10.2023, are upheld. The defendant is directed to hand over vacant possession on receipt of Rs.9,00,000/- and pay Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of plaint till delivery.
Law Points
- License vs Lease distinction
- Unregistered Othi deed
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Section 100 CPC
- Possession suit
- Mesne profits
