Second appeals against judgments confirming ownership and possession of suit property in plaintiff's favour. Court held defendant failed to prove oral tenancy or possession; appeals dismissed.
Second appeals and interlocutory applications dismissed; lower court decrees 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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/15TH JYAISHTA 1934
RSA.No. 66 of 2012 ()
AS.365/2006 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOLLAM OS.800/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/ADDL.DEFENDANTS 2 TO 5:
AGED 49 YEARS, D/O.RUKIYA UMMA KUNJU KUNNAYYATHU VEEDU, PAIKUZHY MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE KARUNAGAPALLY.
BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
LATHIKA
AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI VISHNU NIVAS, PAIKUZHI MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE KARUNAGAPPALLY-690 628.
BY ADV. SRI.M.P.RAMNATH
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-062012, ALONG WITH RSA. 171/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
R.S.A. Nos.66 & 171 of 2012
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2012.
JUDGMENT
These appeals arise from the common judgment and decree of the Additional District Court-I, Kollam in A.S.Nos.365 and 379 of 2006 which in turn arose from the common judgment and decree in O.S.No.800 of 2002, counter claim therein and O.S.No.368 of 2004 of the Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as in the trial court.
RSA Nos.66 & 171 of 2012
2
3
RSA Nos.66 & 171 of 2012
possession and enjoyment of the suit property and accordingly granted decree in her favour in O.S.No.800 of 2002. The counter claim in that suit and O.S.No.368 of 2004 ended in a dismissal.
4
RSA Nos.66 & 171 of 2012
and that no evidence of possession is adduced by the appellants or the 1st defendant and in that view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the courts below.
RSA Nos.66 & 171 of 2012 5
that the 1st respondent/plaintiff purchased the property free from all encumbrances. Exts.A6 to A7 are produced to show that she has been paying revenue for the suit property. Exts.X1 and X2, copy of extract of basic tax register and thandapper account proved through PW3 show that immediately after assignment as per document No.1159 of 2002, plaintiff took possession of the property and mutation was effected in her name. Ext.A11 is a complaint preferred by the 2nd defendant to the local police where there is reference to the possession of the suit property with the plaintiff. PW4 is a coconut climber who gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and stated that he was plucking coconuts from the suit property for and on behalf of the plaintiff.
6
RSA Nos.66 & 171 of 2012
version of plaintiff in O.S.No.800 of 2002 that she is the owner in possession of the suit property. In that view of the matter trial court was justified in holding in favour of the plaintiff and the first appellate court has concurred with that finding.
Second Appeals are dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the claim of cultivating tenancy by the defendant established by oral lease is supported by evidence.
Snehalasyan Musliar
Safia Beevi
Ayishathu @ Sajana Bai
Jameela Beevi
Lathika
Thomas P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
