AS/19/1952 of SUBRAMANIA VADHYAR Vs AMMUKUTTY KAVU VALIAMMA, on 3 December 1954

In the High Court of· Judicature of Travan core-Cochinat #znaulan.'

·Present

Hon 'le"ustice Shri • Sankaranand,

''·The onle Justice hri 'Joseph Vithayathi1..1-t. s.•N&.19 of 1952-~tend lwquisition- Case6./jg50 on th 1le o the TrichQrDistrict, Court ..

Subramania Vedhyai son of iiulavazhipara iadathilKrishna Va- dhyar,Va6alkethra Village, flapally Talk, (appellant - se--__cond part:, in Jmver couisBv-Advocete '-hri l'_. .._s_ .._V_ e· -•··_n_.kit-eswa.r. .a Iv~er·.···~--Ammukutty Kavu -Valienmia, ds ughter of Ki11attunka1:2Chi1111c.;lkav11·$Vrliamma,Thiruvilvvamai~ .Viil2ge,·TalHppally 'l'sluk .. (I-lespon.oent ~•.lst party in the court below53yAdvoc2te,ShriT • .Chand1"askehara J;1enon._-..This appeal having_been £1nally head on 3.12.1954"-t..'D6I.court on the ssme day djlivered the follmvj_ng._- ·1 __ J 1;ic ,c2.me11t •

'Ibis. 8ppee.l ,arises"Mi outof8 dispLite iD respect, of thecompensation emo1.rnt awarded in respect of the·property involved-in 'the c·2se. ·Parties·· l and2112.ve setup rival claims.TheI'fi.rst party claim_s the pr'?-perty ,es hisj-enmom property 2nd 'con-tends t'-hat the seconq party, hes only a1rnnam right over .theproperty.This case as accepted by the lower court end. thecompensation amount h8s been bpportioned on that basis.l'he'secon·a pe.rty has come upi.n. ~ppeal agit.ating hiscontentionI+sthat the jennom right oft·+he riopeorty}/ni;t:h him._\.._,-..,".L.o. +vned.0 uc-ments reliedon .by h1mn the earliest o:oe is B:;~t .I a partitiondeed of the year-1101- wtm:x~i: andtherein he-has described this.DT-'onteT-•tv\/Ll•CO s l,,,,,.l b_ elong-in.-f!. to. hi in jenor.all heother o ocu- ..mens.are of .later dates and they proceed on the bstsis- :)fand h~nce they ~re of no greeter significance~So far as thefirst party is concerned, it is seen thect · patta for this pro-perty we.s granted in his-favour..Thj_s isseen from E.xt.C~Aclmltteoly the second pa.tr.ty hes notobta'fi_ried patta\9nct hellr is!,-,-,,·.;.;;.-._-<ee<ees •sorest •sorestsoreststt«el:

,-,-,,·.;.;;-<ees •sorest •sorestsoreststt '~<)

·',:;._,-:~~...

I.\

... }

'"'';?~~'.~~'.~'.'.)'c'.1'c'.1'.1it;; ':~wiT'~'f!~•,~~wiT'~'f!~•,~wiT'~'f!~•,~iT'~'f!~•,~T'~'f!~•,~'~'f!~•,~'f!~•,~~•,~•,~,~:!:}i;:_,;:\!!:}i;:_,;:\!:}i;:_,;:\!}i;:_,;:\!i;:_,;:\!;:_,;:\!:_,;:\!_,;:\!,;:\!;:\!· ;; ;·.• ,,. ;; ;·.• ,,.; ;·.• ,,. ;·.• ,,.·.• ,,..• ,,.• ,,. ,,..;_,;_,;,;;····./·•.·.~.·~..-,f-../·•.·.~.·~..-,f-./·•.·.~.·~..-,f-.·•.·.~.·~..-,f-.•.·.~.·~..-,f-..·.~.·~..-,f-.·.~.·~..-,f-..~.·~..-,f-.~.·~..-,f-..·~..-,f-.·~..-,f-.~..-,f-...-,f-..-,f-.,f-.f-.-..·;i,.,:.·i,.,:.·,.,:.·.,:.·:.·.··.-.·····

"'·~~~•~;,rs,ryc,,r:,::,01:Cffl!! . ,.;?~~'.~~'.~'.'.)'c'.1'c'.1'.1it;; ':~wiT'~'f!~•,~~wiT'~'f!~•,~wiT'~'f!~•,~iT'~'f!~•,~T'~'f!~•,~'~'f!~•,~'f!~•,~~•,~•,~,~:!:}i;:_,;:\!!:}i;:_,;:\!:}i;:_,;:\!}i;:_,;:\!i;:_,;:\!;:_,;:\!:_,;:\!_,;:\!,;:\!;:\!· ;; ;·.• ,,. ;; ;·.• ,,.; ;·.• ,,. ;·.• ,,.·.• ,,..• ,,.• ,,. ,,..;_,;_,;,;;····./·•.·.~.·~..-,f-../·•.·.~.·~..-,f-./·•.·.~.·~..-,f-.·•.·.~.·~..-,f-.•.·.~.·~..-,f-..·.~.·~..-,f-.·.~.·~..-,f-..~.·~..-,f-.~.·~..-,f-..·~..-,f-.·~..-,f-.~..-,f-...-,f-..-,f-.,f-.f-.-..·;i,.,:.·i,.,:.·,.,:.·.,:.·:.·.··. ·.·, i:~-i,\.-.·····-....:<>;M~····,,Ilat $)ile fo iiplx;;:t,;.,}fie ~i,ppened ~Q )ie granted. ·.. ;/;jfirst· partv.It ..j)s~ ft;tj:ti).er seen that as early as in ·the..ye8r ::{§og is rrr-re +sf#es s± Ek@. erreisfeecl,·coted :-Qy the~~embers•Qi?th~ .first pa:rty.·TheY have deait·tvi'th,)-~.this,.;ro;ert-!ra..s tl]eir?-~-f--o~ -w!),.~ .~·ftE?te.rence is a-lsomade. t01a ltanarn.\:f1j1demise_ in fsvo_ur· .or v~1~.tarBQJ8.l1·vac}hyan WhQ is the predecessorj5·Ain lDtere st of . the c'.s.eefa party •Ext •Btws bee:n produced. as .1tpe kanarn deed.It:is '.~ ancient. oeed arn:,i·J:1tLs? be~n produced.',;'~',l'r-·om. proper·cus__tody., j_1"·e 1oer court has held that it Is a 1".'~]genu:\ne 6oeuet.The:ere feet thet the signature tat. $'is soroev;hs.t different i}p-! m ·the· same. per$6n s sig118.ture :in.Bit;,;,,V ano VI 9f l-e..ter c'ates"f~·:·~:/~:is., .not a -su..f ·-f{fc.ie,n•'t- --·reas,o-n. t/"',a ''a. .i..s-.ca-r. :d~t/£_::;'~-- ':.'•• ··-:f:"ir,Ext.B as·a spurfuous a~~~rrient. The weight of the evidence on._'_,;,~ij. ...-·.. . -.....·.··.. :_;~1~~re·cord is decldecilY iri·,}lfav6ur of .the cese. _setup· by the fi!'St° .:ti.·1(.-~~'p2rti am::: hence we see "~o rsasdn to disturU the oonclusion ar..,c;Ji -~~n ar..,c;Ji ar..,c;Jir..,c;Ji..,c;Ji;JiJii-., CJ_:rive6.

±th costs.#}'''(Sd}K.Sankaran·,; Ju6ge..~ij-•,•,.~-••_.,j--• -" ~~.s65 7oeer nitsv=ti1, Tai&e$

drtt•.copy)..copy).copy).opy).py).y).)..f{ '{ ' 'c•'g~-t.-±./..·~--•:.J·raf£1:J

(Trdrtt•.copy)..copy).copy).opy).py).y).)..f{ '{ ' '

'..

...... /

J,.J.