This appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court pursuing to the order of the High Court wherein the court decided the matter on the contrary to the appeal of the appellant. The matter that was first filed with the lower court where the decision was made in favor of the appellant and then the second appeal was filed with respondent pleading that matter was against the law, and the Appellate court decided the matter in favor of the respondent, the High Court after the filing of the appeal proceeded with the matter in a confusing conclusion wherein the matter was in favor of the appellant and substituted the decision of the Appellate Court to the extent its favors to the respondent as well. The matter was with regards to the decree pleaded by the respondent for recovery of possession of the matter which was in a dispute wherein also the property now termed as the subject matter of the suit. The appellant herein was the person, and original complainant wherein the complaint filed was for the declaration of the premises of which he is the owner, and the location of the premises was at the door no.4 at the Mela Senia Street, Aduthurai, Tamil Nadu.

The appellant further made the submissions that his father was the first owner of the house, and he purchased the land/property by way of execution of the sale deed on 17^th February 1938, and since then the appellant is the only person living in the house since its inception and still continues to live there as owner and no in the capacity of the tenant. In the year 1994, the respondent herein, the plaintiff, filed a suit being the original suit in the court of Munsif at the Valaingaiman at Kumbhakonam, wherein the respondent plaintiff filed such suit claiming that the appellant then the defendant should pay the person the rent has accrued and other expenditure towards the party which should include the expenses as to the recovery and other miscellaneous.

The suit also included the prayer wherein the respondent asked the court to provide with a declaratory decree for possession of the suit premises with the decree of INR 900/- as the arrears and the plaintiff then made a submission with regards to future profits if any would arise by a fair calculation of the court’s guide should be remitted to the respondent plaintiff. The respondent filed a submission in the suit filed that the respondent was originally the owner of the property by way of execution of the sale deed he recollected and submitted in the court that the father of the respondent executed a sale deed on 17^th September 1940 after such sale deed the property was let out to Mr M. Abdul Aziz as rented property, and the above-mentioned person will be the tenant for the mentioned period. The respondent also made the submission that the person who now is the father of the appellant herein also agreed to pay the rent of such premises which amounted to INR 25 per month and also agreed to pay the agreed to pay requisite Panchayat tax. Further, the problem raised when the respondent plaintiff was informed about the property being transferred in the name of the appellant herein by way of patta to the tahsildar, and the suit was filed also with of the payment of rent.

The appellant, then defendant, filed a submission that the plaintiff-respondent herein did not have any title up to the ownership of the property, and the submission made by the respondent plaintiff is false and has no valid standing for such claim, also this appeal arises out of the decision that High Court resorted that respondent herein was entitled to the land as he claimed the ownership and the appellate court has rightly decided the matter. Further the respondent not just claims the decree regarding the possession of the property and any income that arises with property to the extent of the share as stated by the respondent. The respondent further shall be entitled to the expenses required by the appellant to pay in the way of compensation, damages or loss of any kind if such occurred with the due submission of the evidence regarding that in this court.

1. Whether the appellant is the owner of the property?
2. Whether the respondent is valid in such submission with respect to the property?
3. Whether the evidence supports the claims regarding the ownership of the premises?
4. Whether the High Court decision has validity with regards to the law in this behalf?

The Honorable Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsels representing both the parties in the matter above and considering the facts and the precedents submitted established by the Honorable Judges to support the prayers and pleadings of the parties in the matter above states its observation herein that every court whether the original suit of the appellate suit should first primarily file the reason of the matter. The court should try the matter in accordance with laws wherein the matter is dealt with the question of the law, and not on just grounds of the evidence presented before the court of law.

The Supreme Court thinks that there is always a decision in favor of the High Court when the second appeal is affirmed by the court but this court in the matter above has decided the contrary view, wherein the court finds that there exists nothing on which the complete reliance can be placed on in affirming the decision, the presumption with regards to the question of law entertained by the High Court has no answers, and so the Supreme Court think there can be any proper justice accorded without the resolution to a substantial question of the law. The Supreme Court has mentioned that it is only a matter of time where the suit has restudied and decided wherein the no affirmation will be accepted by this court for the above matter and decided to understand the matter in the new light to the facts and the question of law in the above matter.

The Supreme Court allows the appeal and the decision of the High Court has set aside to the extent of the second appeal, and the decision by the earlier court has been restored.