Indira Banerjee JUDGMENT
Indira Banerjee, J.
1. These appeals are against a common judgment andI dated 06.11.2008 dismissing the Second Appeal being S.A. (MD) No. 64 of 2000, filed by the Appellant, but allowing the Second Appeal being S.A. (MD) No. 558 of 2000 filed by the Respondent, and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.09.1999 of the First Appellate Court in A.S. No. 16/1998, to the extent the First Appellate Court had declined the Respondent's claim to a decree of recovery of possession of the suit premises. The High Court held that the Respondent, being the Plaintiff in the suit was entitled to a declaration of title in respect of half portion of the suit premises, recovery of possession of the said half portion of the suit premises and also to recovery of income from the said half of the suit property owned by the Respondent and/or charges for use, enjoyment and/or occupation thereof.
2. The Appellant claims to be the owner of the suit premises, being the building and premises at Door No. 4 in R.S. No. 120/13 at Mela Senia Street, Aduthurai, Tamil Nadu.
3. According to the Appellant, the Appellant's father purchased the suit premises for valuable consideration, by a registered deed of sale dated 17.2.1938. The Appellant claims to have been in possession of the suit premises, as owner, from the inception and not as tenant.
4. In 1994, the Respondent, hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent Plaintiff', filed a suit being O.S. No. 169/1994 in the Court of the District Munsif, Valaingaiman at Kumbhakonam, claiming declaration of ownership of the suit premises, a direction on the Appellant, being the Defendant, to deliver possession of the suit premises to the Respondent Plaintiff, a decree for payment of Rs. 900/- towards arrears of rent/occupation charges in respect of the suit premises, and a decree for payment of future profits.
5. In the plaint filed in the said suit, it has been alleged that the said premises, which had been purchased by the Respondent Plaintiff's father, by a registered sale deed dated 17.9.1940, had originally been let out to the Appellant's father M. Abdul Aziz. After the death of M. Abdul Aziz, the tenancy was attorned in the name of the Appellant, who agreed to pay rent of Rs. 25/- per month, and also the requisite Panchayat Tax.
6. Alleging that the Appellant had been trying to set up title in respect of the said premises, by applying for 'Patta' to the Tahsildar Natham, and further alleging that the Appellant was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,225/- up to February, 1994, the Respondent Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit.
7. In the suit, the Respondent Plaintiff inter alia claimed a decree of Rs. 900/- towards rent and/or occupation charges. The Respondent Plaintiff restricted his claim to arrears of rent and/or occupation charges to three years, as the claim to rent and/or occupation charges for the earlier period, had become barred by limitation, there being no acknowledgement of liability by the Appellant-Defendant.
8. The Appellant-Defendant filed his written statement in the Suit, denying title and/or ownership of the Respondent Plaintiff to the suit premises and also contend........