SA/4/1980 of CHERIYAVASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI Vs KUTTASSERI THAZHATHE VEETTIL THAVAZHI KARANAVAN MADHAVAN NAIR on 25 January 1985

1. Kuttasseri Thazhat.ne Veettil Thavazhi Karanavan MadhavanNair, Manjeri Amsom., Ari.1.tizhayi Desom, Ernad Taluk,±glaurama District.Nair, Manjeri Amsom., Ari.1.tizhayi Desom, Ernad Taluk,±glaurama District.

2. Taraannil orasayil Ayanea' s Son Kammumli, residingat do, aaso, dodesolD., do.Taluk, do. District•at do, aaso, dodesolD., do.Taluk, do. District•

.By Advs. M/s. P .K.Balasuoram.aniyan,G.K.Usba andK.S, Hama Warrier.K.S, Hama Warrier.

fi1is SecondA_pjeal having been finally heard on 25.1,1985, the courton the same day delivered '\he following 1-

- - -

- -

S.A.

- -

- - -

/...... - .....I ------------ ..

,/

No. 4 of 1980 - B

-- --l- --------

JU. D GM E N T...l

Thie ia an appeal b.f tne }rd defe.aiant.The 2nd defendant died pending suit and the 5rd defendant is te legal re.,resentat.ive o! t. ae 2110 d efendan\.Initiall.1 t;iesuit was filed for an injunet.ioa.t!lereai"\er tne vlaintwas amended and the suit as cmver\ed iato a suit. for recovez·,,- of ,>ossesa.i.on of the plaint schedule roperty.The2nd defendant. contended tnai ae was t.:ie owner ot i.he plaintschedule roper.iie contended that he head title to aad ossession overes laint schedule property.The thirdde:ten.dau\ ado~t.ed l.i1e conten\iona of the 2nd defendant..'Illeplaintiff also claims title and said that he lost ~osse- seion when the defendants trespassed into the rop@Te The trial oour'\ considered \he evidence in t:1.e case articularly in regard to tae title of the lain seas4ul°

,-roi,erty end found t:lllt the;>laipUff failed\0 .,rove Ilia tit&lend dismissed tae sal·

The defeated laintiff filed an aeal before t.b.e

2. appellln• oourt,

th• e,Jellate oour\ reversed

ct!le judgaent

\

and decree oft b.e \rial court aDd decreed'511• s11it.Tb.eonly qaes-tion t.otae decided in the case is vnetb.er t,ne-finding of the appellate ooari\bat \ne plaintiff nae eatablistled his tit.le is correct or not.Nov I shall dealin brief the rival claims of title to the roertby helaintiff and the d eferldan'\e.According to '\ he rla1n\1f!tne wroperty oelongoto one Kai-\batcical Mana.In 1947 \rutrewas a vart.ition inthe family of Hana,t.he partition isevidencedb.Y Ext. A-1 in tb.is oaee.Plaint property asallot. t.ed to Madhavan !Iamboodiri11Dder Ext. A-1 •MadhavanNamboodiri after obtaining the property under £xt., Alassigned the same in favour of Lautmi.Aawaa.Tne docwaentof assignaaent is evidenced in be caae as Ext. A-2.Therewas a partition in the Tavast>.i ot Laitebrili Aalaa ev1.denced b.:,Ext. A-2 d:,.ted16.7 .. 191, and in th.is partition the roerywas allotted to the plaintiffs branch.This is the case ofthe laintiff in regard to his title.

3. The 2nd def2ndat 2ontended that the roperty belong@to ±cokadil Illo wao executed a possessory ortgage inf'avour of aladi ana,Coy of the ortease is 3x1.. .3-3.Ext. d-9 ie dated 2;,:;.11.13-38.In a parti\iGll in the roonkudi:!am.ilJ in 1 j)7 evider..oed in tile caae as ±xt, -10, t.i:le aecond I{

de:f'endan'l obtained the equity of redemption over t.!J.e'properly.Tn.e 2nd defendants tavazsni instit.u'\ed a suito.s. 463 of 1954, for redea~tion of the m.or\gage Ext. B-:J.B-7 ia the judgment iu that sui\.13-5 1s the decree,.a-6 is the Allin'e account.'.rnere vaa a 9len .tire,t)art:td oy theComm issioner aointedinthesuit.It ismar kedes zxt, 3tne d e!eruJanta !lave also marked '\ne rek'or't o! 'the Comm:ieslonein that case as Ext. 3-1 ;.Purauu.t to the delivery in0 •S • 463 of 1354, they caae into pn.J• i.Cti .voaseasion of thisroper T!le important queation that bas to be decided in ne!le important queation that bas to be decided in nee important queation that bas to be decided in ne important queation that bas to be decided in nemportant queation that bas to be decided in neportant queation that bas to be decided in neortant queation that bas to be decided in netant queation that bas to be decided in neant queation that bas to be decided in nent queation that bas to be decided in net queation that bas to be decided in ne queation that bas to be decided in neo be decided in ne be decided in nee decided in neecided in necided in neided in neded in need in ned in ne in nen ne nee

4. T!le important queation that bas to be decided in ne!le important queation that bas to be decided in nee important queation that bas to be decided in ne important queation that bas to be decided in nemportant queation that bas to be decided in neportant queation that bas to be decided in neortant queation that bas to be decided in netant queation that bas to be decided in neant queation that bas to be decided in nent queation that bas to be decided in net queation that bas to be decided in ne queation that bas to be decided in neo be decided in ne be decided in nee decided in neecided in necided in neided in neded in need in ned in ne in nen ne neecase is vb.ether the :-laintiff has roved title to ille .,laintschedule,tiropert,Y.In x-egard to proof of ti"tle also, thecouri nas to consider the ~repoDdera.ace of ~robabilitiea ~osee where does tne title rest,Tae appellate court has donea very good Job in examining in depth the question of t.itleto -the1i'ro,ver'tt.t.It ti.as com.e 'io a correc"t conclusion th.at.the vlaintift 3as eatablisned bis iitle.i::xt. A-1-•a statedearlier is a eriion in tb.e !aailj of Kaitnak..ltal IllCll.The suit roerty is included in tba'\ partilion deed.Thename and other description of th.e suit ~ro.fierty t~3cf-.. with-tae naae and other aescriptions given in Ex'i. A1.Thevlaint schedule.;?l'.'oi-'ert.; is itera .No.48 in G sc:1edule.

a» Sue

It is seen th.at the properti ,)• dealt wita. by \!le allottee in 1961,The llottee has sold the property o Laksbsd •-{» {>e--Again re see that tae roart e dealt wtn by Lestai'esfamily in ~t. a-}1-~artition.In that,parti.t.ion thisproJert./'.:'tas been g1.ven iro \a.e plaint-if:£' a urauch..1ne,:1laintii! has produced2:Xts.A-4 to A-12t,ax receiptss:iowine tt1a.t Lrutsruait.mma n.aa ..-,aio t. ne tax.~i.s.A-13 toA-15 are extracts of aettle11.ent. register of r1anjeri amsoui.e.xtra.ot of1..esurvey resettleaent register 0f Hal.ijei.·i ,h.taO'.uand settlement re6istar of tuat Aruki2'ha.,& deaom res.lieetively.l:r1.10 t,:iatFatta alone will n,,.., ;.;oiuer t.lt.ltS...,oat these regisers soul@ show that the roetty as treatedas aeprocrty vf t:1e i'eraons naiaed in those 1·egistera.It tl&a got great.1:/robs,tive value in assessing t.h.e title of a.re very crediolectocc1w.ents !or determining-t.n.e title oft.heproery.ine counsel fortl:le a~pellant subai~tedt.!lat tneprevious redo.a~t..1.011,.;acree will snow conclusively tua.t thedefer.dashad itlesosis proper¥»I canno'\ a.:,ree witll.hi,ie reiers re v tnae judgaent slid decree and ot,n.er

1. his 0.. 405 0f i ;;.;.,4was a • aiit. for re@eapion 0fmo.r·tge.ge.In cona.i.dering tb.e probative value of the t'- I

doowaents relating ~othe execution proceedings the firstand for81loet \bing t:tw.t nae to oe looked into is tb.e suitdocument in O.S, 43 of 1954.The aellate court has taengreat flf!in to consider in de.tf'5h t.be yalue of \!lese docaaen:ts.XaDJI He has examine.; ~t.. B-9 "\lle attiii dooo.iiflent and f'OllDd~,....:..,... c. s..v-i.J.....ta.at. Ext•.B-9 will not take in the ..-..t vro~erty,.._Thisfinding ofooarse is s~riottsl.Y cl\al.le»gedby \b.e coansel forthe appellant,Ia lasnae cannot cnallenge tnia findillg.Since this ia a iindi:ug or !so\ •.au., I ave also exainedthe cori.·ectneas of tt.1.<-1 .finding.1 aave ao lleei\at.ioA \o holdthat he finding recordedby the sellete court on thisissue is.i?er!ectl;y eo:.::reei.Now i\ ia eat.ablianed itiat the.%plaintiff as otovsuproperty andohbasgot the right to recover ~he property.Tnere ia no cs.se forthe defendants that taey have perfected title oy adverse"osseasion.Tue a..-,Jtellate oour\ nae decreed tne suit.Ifind no error ln th.at deoree.Theeal ie ODlJ" to bedismissed.I do ao.In t.n.e oircwutances, no order. aa \ocosts.

SJ/- Varghese Kallia~h, Judge.

//True Copy II

~~-············•