This appeal was filed by the Pariyaram Gramapanchayath against an eviction suit and damages award in O.S.600/95. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decree for possession and damages for delayed surrender of the property.
Appeal dismissed without costs; eviction suit and damages award in favor of plaintiffs upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932
AS.No. 333 of 2002() -----------------------------OS.600/1995 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ....................
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1 & 2
--------------------------------------------------
1. PARIYARAM GRAMAPANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARIYARAM P.O., THRISSUR DIST.
2. PARIYARAM GRAMAPANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PARIYARAM, DO.
BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & 3RD DEFENDANT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. JOSEPH, S/O. DEVASSYKUTTY, KUTTIKKAD DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
2. ITTUP, RETIRED HEADMASTER S/O. VALIYAVEETTIL KUNJUVAREED, VYNTHALA DESOM, KALLUR VADAKUMMURY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
3. EMILY, W/O. MUNDAMANI JOSE, POOVATHINGAL DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
4. POULOSE, S/O. PERINGIPARAMBIL DEVASSYKUTTY, KUTTIKKADU DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM, SMT.K.A.THANU MOL.
THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AS.No. 333 of 2002
ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.4176/2002 IN A.S. NO.333/2002
DISMISSED
05/08/2010.
SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. NO. 333 OF 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the
judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda in O.S.600/95. The suit is one for eviction as well as for realisation of the amount for use and occupation as damages. The defendant is a local body. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in order to run a primary health centre the building belonging to the plaintiffs were given free of rent for a period of one year with a condition that it has to be surrendered immediately on the completion of one year and if any litigation ensues the Panchayath has to bear the same. Accordingly Ext.A2 was
A.S. 333 OF 2002
-2-
executed on 15.12.92 and the period of one year expired on 15.12.93. It can be seen from the materials available that the building was handed over possession back only on 25.3.97. So the plaintiff had demanded damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for 18 months and necessarily when there is a prayer for recovery of possession the damages sustained till the date of surrender can be given as well.
A.S. 333 OF 2002
-3-
landlord. When you claim property under three persons they are lessors and after the lease you are bound to surrender the property when demanded by them in accordance with law. Further the trial court has elaborately considered the matter and held that there is no evidence to show that 3rd plaintiff's husband is survived by any other legal heir. Therefore competency to file the suit is in favour of the plaintiffs.
running a primary health centre. There is one
A.S. 333 OF 2002
-4-
hall on the ground floor and one hall on the
first floor and rooms for the doctors. So one
can necessarily imagine the size of the building. For such a building the rent paid is Rs.900/- per month though the demand is for Rs.2,000/-. Since the Panchayath is the custodian in relation to document of the
assessment of tax, the Panchayath wanted to make out a case that only that value can be awarded.
It has to be remembered that it is the prevailing rate that has to be taken into consideration as well.
sq.ft he has to pay about Rs.700/-. So here the area is about 900 sq.ft. and the damages for use and occupation granted by the trial Court is at Rs.900/- per month that too for a period from
A.S. 333 OF 2002
-5-
the date of notice till the date of surrender.
By any stretch of imagination one cannot hold that the amount granted by the trial court is arbitrary, excessive or incorrect. Therefore there is no merit in this appeal and hence it is dismissed but without costs.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-
A.S. 333 OF 2002
-6-
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = A.S. No. 333 OF 2002
= = = = = = = = = = =
J U D G M E N T
5th August, 2010.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an eviction suit filed by plaintiffs against a local body defendant should be allowed or dismissed on appeal.
Whether the quantum of damages for use and occupation awarded by the trial court was arbitrary or excessive.
Whether the competency of the plaintiffs to file the suit given the lease agreement and successorship issues.
PARIYARAM GRAMAPANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
PARIYARAM GRAMAPANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
JOSEPH
ITTUP
EMILY
M.N. KRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
