The High Court of Kerala dismissed three regular second appeals against judgments whereby appeals in eviction suits were allowed, relying on the presumption of title under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Second appeals RSA. Nos. 188, 273 & 276 of 2015 dismissed; interlocutory applications closed.
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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937
RSA.No. 188 of 2015 ()
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 5/2007 of SUB COURT, TIRUR DATED 26.09.2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 3/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT,PARAPPANANGADI DATED 30.11.2006
APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT/IST DEFENDANT:
P.K.KUNJALANKUTTY NADUTHODI HOUSE, PANIKKOTTUMPADI VELIMUKKU AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR -676 317.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
SRI.C.R.REGHUNATHAN SRI.N.ARAVINDAN SRI.M.V.ASHIM SRI.R.BALAKRISHNAN SRI.B.HARRYLAL SRI.SUVIN.R.MENON
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFFS & 2ND DEFENDANT:
1. JAFFER SADHIQ S/O.KUMMANTHODI HYDER MAMMAD HAJI, EDAYADI VELIMUKKU AMSOM, TIRUR -676 317.
2. JAMEELA D/O.KUMMANTHODI HYDER MAMMAD HAJI, EDAYADI VELIMUKKU AMSOM, TIRUR -676 317.
3. PATHUMMA UMMA W/O.KUMMANTHODI HYDER MAMMAD HAJI, EDAYADI VELIMUKKU AMSOM, TIRUR -676 317.
4. ABU SABAH
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-11-2015, ALONG WITH RSA. 273/2015 AND RSA 276/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
R.S.A.Nos.188, 273 & 276 of 2015
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2015
JUDGMENT
These appeals are preferred challenging the common judgment in three appeals namely A.S.Nos.4/2007, 5/2007 and 6/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirur. Among the said appeals, A.S.No.4/2007 is an appeal preferred against the decision in O.S.No.4/1996 and A.S.No.5/2007 is an appeal preferred against the decision in O.S.No.3/1996. Likewise, A.S.No.6/2007 is an appeal preferred against the decision in O.S.No.117/1996.
R.S.A. Nos.188, 273 & 276 of 2015 2
the Government puramboke land and therefore, the plaintiffs, who have no rights in the suit property, are not entitled to the decree sought in the suits.
Evidence Act is that where a person has been brought into possession as a tenant by the landlord and if that tenant is permitted to question the title of the landlord, the same will give rise to extreme confusion in the matter of relationship of the landlord and tenant. As such, the appellate court is justified in allowing the appeals placing reliance on Section 116 of the Indian
R.S.A. Nos.188, 273 & 276 of 2015
3
Evidence Act.
The second appeals, in the circumstances, are devoid of merits and the same are, accordingly dismissed. All the
interlocutory applications in the appeals are closed.
SD/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
JV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a tenant who admitted possession from a predecessor can question the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Whether the second appeals are devoid of merits and should be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.K. Kunjanankutty Naduthodi House
Jaffer Sadhiq
Jameela
Pathumma Umma
Abu Sabah
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
