Partly allowed

G.N.Sebastian v. M/S. Tata Tea Imited and 2 Others

Kerala HC20 Jul 2010RSA/672/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeals filed by a retired employee claiming independent ownership of a house allotted to him by his former employer. The Court held that the plaintiff company possessed sufficient title via the appellant's own letters admitting his possession as an employee, and ordered him to vacate within six months.

What did the court decide?

Second appeals dismissed; appellant ordered to vacate premises within six months from today subject to filing unconditional undertaking.

G.N.Sebastian Vs M/S. Tata Tea Imited and 2 Others — Partition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

RSA.No. 672 of 2010()

¶6

-------------------------------AS.34/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA OS.100/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM

¶7

APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶8

-------------------------------------------------------

¶9

G.N. SEBASTIAN S/O.J.G.NARAYANAN, AGED 62 YEARS RESIDING AT MP VIII/451, NAGARMUDI DIVISION, SEVENMALAY ESTATE, TATA TEA LIMITED, MUNNAR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL, SRI.JOSE MATHEW (KAVALAKALAM).

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS

¶12

-----------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. M/S. TATA TEA LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, MUNNAR K.D.H. VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK.

¶14

2. THE MANAGER, SEVENMALAY ESTATE, K.D.H.VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK.

¶15

3. KANNAN DEVEN HILL PLANTATION CO.LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, K.D.H.P. HOUSE, N.H.49, MUNNAR, K.D.H. VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK.

¶16

¶17

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, ALONG WITH RSA NO.673 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

¶18

RSA.No. 672 of 2010

¶19

ORDER ON I.A.NO.1436/2010 IN R.S.A. NO.672/2010

¶20

CLOSED

¶21

20/07/2010.

¶22

SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

R.S.A Nos. 672 and 673 of 2010 -------------------------Dated this the 20th July, 2010

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Two suits were jointly filed before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam namely O.S No.100/2004 and O.S No.113/2004.

¶30

O.S No.113/2004 was decreed and O.S No.100/2004 was dismissed. Defendant in O.S. No.113/2004 carried the matter in appeal as A.S 33/2008 and Plaintiff in O.S 100/2004 carried the matter in appeal as A.S 34/2008. The lower appellate court dismissed both the appeals. R.S.A No.672/2010 is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S No.100/2004 and R.S.A No.673/2010 is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S No.113/2004.

¶31

The facts are not disputed at all. According to the plaintiff, in O.S No.100/2004, from which R.S.A No.672/2010 arose, his father was put in possession of the plaint schedule by the company under some arrangement. During 1972 the father of the plaintiff put the plaintiff into possession of the plaint schedule

¶32

R.S.A Nos. 672 & 673 of 2010

¶33

¶34

property. He continued his possession. Plaintiff claims independent right over the property. However, the company maintained the stand that he was allotted a building as he was an employee of the company. Since he has retired from the company, he is bound to vacate the same. The company sought to evict him from the premises. The suit was laid for injunction. The company in turn instituted a suit for recovery of possession on title. Both these suits were tried together. O.S.No.100/2004 was headed as the leading case.

¶35

The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A10 were marked from the side of the plaintiff in O.S No.113/2004. Defendant had examined DW1 and Ext. B1 was marked. Ext. C1 and C1 (a) are the commission report and plan.

¶36

The trial court on evaluation of the evidence in the case found that the plaintiff in O.S. 113/2004 is the owner of the property and defendant in the suit who is the appellant herein, was allowed to occupy the premises as an employee of the Company. The trial court concluded that

¶37

R.S.A Nos. 672 & 673 of 2010

¶38

¶39

he is bound to vacate the property belonging to the plaintiff in the suit. The court below relied on Exts.A1to A6 letters said to have been written by the defendant seeking extension of time to surrender the plaint schedule property.

¶40

The appellate court re-considered the issues raised before it and came to the conclusion as that of the trial court.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the suit instituted by the company is being based on title. The company was bound to produce the document of title and establish the title of the company. For establishing the title, the company has produced Exts.A9 certificate issued by the Panchayat. That is insufficient to establish the title of the plaintiff.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the company owns the building. On this sole ground the company ought to have been non-suited.

¶43

Though the arguments may look very attractive on a close scrutiny it can be seen that without any

¶44

R.S.A Nos. 672 & 673 of 2010

¶45

¶46

substance at all. It is true that the company has produced two documents which are the certificates issued to the plaintiff company. The company has not produced any document of title of the plaint schedule property.

¶47

However, the fact remains that both the courts have found that Exts.A1 to A6 are the communications issued by the defendant which show that he was seeking time from the company for vacating the premises. Both the courts below have concurrently found that letters were in fact written by the defendant. If that be so, in both suits no acceptable explanation is offered by the appellant for those communications. Unless the admission in the letter was explained the courts below thought no further document of title was necessary to be produced by the Company. Therefore, the courts below could not be found fault with. Both the courts below were perfectly justified in non-suiting the plaintiff in O.S.100/04.

¶48

The Company has been held to own the building and that defendant is only in possession and occupation. In the light of the above situation, learned counsel for the

¶49

R.S.A Nos. 672 & 673 of 2010

¶50

¶51

appellant sought time to vacate the premises He pointed that the appellant has been an employee of the company for a considerable period and now he has retired from the company. According to the company when an employee ceases to be their employee the building allotted to him will have to be vacated.

¶52

Six months period is sufficient for the appellant to make alternate arrangements.

¶53

In the result, Appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that appellant needs to vacate the premises within six months from today on condition that he files an affidavit before the trial court with an unconditional undertaking that he will vacate the premises within a period of six months from today.

¶54

P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶55

¶56

R.S.A Nos. 672 & 673 of 2010

¶57

¶58

R.S.A Nos. 672 & 673 of 2010

¶59

G.N.Sebastian v. M/S. Tata Tea Imited and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.N.Sebastian v. M/S. Tata Tea Imited and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajagopalan Vs Subramania Pillai

Rajan, S/O.Mayandi Vs Kerala State,Rep.Dist.Collector & Anr.

Aswathi Finance Vs Balachandran

Muhammed Hilal K Vs Manniyil Abdu & Another

M/S Mary Matha Financiers Vs K.Radhakrishnan etc.

Kesavan Nair Vs K.v.Sisupalan Nair