Poonkudil Narayanamangalath Illath Neelak.antan Namboodiri v. M/s. V., Venkit

eson@ents/Resonaents/Plaintiff 1st Defendants

1. Kuttasseri Thazhat.ne Veettil Thavazhi Karanavan Madhavan Nair, Manjeri Amsom., Ari.1.tizhayi Desom, Ernad Taluk, ±glaurama District.

2. Taraannil orasay il Ayanea' s Son Kammumli, residing at do, aaso, do desolD., do. Taluk, do. District• .By Advs. M/s. P .K. Balasuoram.aniyan, G.K. Usba and K.S, Hama Warrier. fi1is Second A_pjeal having been finally heard on

25.1,1985, the court on the same day delivered '\he following 1- I - - - - - S.A. - - - - - / I ...... - ..... ------------ .. /, No. 4 of 1980 - B -- --l- -------- J U. D GM E N T ... l Thie ia an appeal b.f tne }rd defe.aiant. The 2nd defendant died pending suit and the 5rd defendant is te legal re.,resentat.ive o! t. ae 2110 d efendan\. Initiall.1 t;ie suit was filed for an injunet.ioa. t!lereai"\er tne vlaint was amended and the suit as cmver\ed iato a suit. for recovez·,,- of ,>ossesa.i.on of the plaint schedule roperty. The 2nd defendant. contended tnai ae was t.:ie owner ot i.he plaint schedule roper. iie contended that he head title to aad ossession over es laint schedule property. The third de:ten.dau\ ado~t.ed l.i1e conten\iona of the 2nd defendant.. 'Ille plaintiff also claims title and said that he lost ~osse- seion when the defendants trespassed into the rop@Te The trial oour'\ considered \he evidence in t:1.e case articularly in regard to tae title of the lain seas4ul° ,-roi,erty end found t:lllt the ;>laipUff failed \0 .,rove Ilia tit&lend dismissed tae sal ·

2. The defeated laintiff filed an aeal before t.b.e appellln• oourt, th• e,Jellate oour\ reversed ct!le judgaent 1 - 2 - \ and decree oft b.e \rial court aDd decreed '511• s11it. Tb.e only qaes-tion t.o tae decided in the case is vnetb.er t,ne finding of the appellate ooari \bat \ne plaintiff nae eat ablistled his tit.le is correct or not. Nov I shall deal in brief the rival claims of title to the roert by he l aintiff and the d eferldan'\e. According to '\ he rla1n\1f! tne wroperty oelongoto one Kai-\batcical Mana. In 1947 \rutre was a vart.ition in the family of Hana, t.he partition is evidenced b.Y Ext. A-1 in tb.is oaee. Plaint property as allot. t.ed to Madhavan !Iamboodiri 11Dder Ext. A-1 • Madhavan Namboodiri after obtaining the property under £xt., Al assigned the same in favour of Lautmi .Aawaa. Tne docwaent of assignaaent is evidenced in be caae as Ext. A-2. There was a partition in the Tavast>.i ot Laitebrili Aalaa ev1.denced b.:, Ext. A-2 d:,.ted 16. 7 .. 191, and in th.is partition the roery was allotted to the plaintiffs branch. This is the case of the laintiff in regard to his title.

3. The 2nd def2ndat 2ontended that the roperty belong@ to ±cokadil Illo wao executed a possessory ortgage in f' avour of aladi ana, Coy of the ortease is 3x1.. .3-3. Ext. d-9 ie dated 2;,:;.11.13-38. In a parti\iGll in the roonkudi: !am.ilJ in 1 j)7 evider..oed in tile caae as ±xt, -10, t.i:le aecond I { de:f'endan'l obtained the equity of redemption over t.!J.e properly. Tn.e 2nd defendant's tavazsni instit.u'\ed a suit o.s. 463 of 1954, for redea~tion of the m.or\gage Ext. B-:J. B-7 ia the judgment iu that sui\. 13-5 1s the decree, .a-6 is the Allin' e account. '.rnere vaa a 9len .tire,t)art:td oy the Comm i s s i o n er aointed in the s u i t . It is mar k ed e s zxt, 3 tne d e!eruJanta !lave also marked '\ne rek'or't o! 'the Comm:ieslone in that case as Ext. 3-1 ;. Purauu.t to the delivery in 0 •S • 463 of 1354, they caae into pn.J• i.Cti .voaseasion of this

4. T!le important queation that bas to be decided in ne case is vb.ether the :-laintiff has roved title to ille .,laint schedule ,tiropert,Y. In x-egard to proof of ti"tle also, the couri nas to consider the ~repoDdera.ace of ~robabilitiea ~o see where does tne title rest, Tae appellate court has done a very good Job in examining in depth the question of t.itle to -the 1i'ro,ver'tt.t. It ti.as com.e 'io a correc"t conclusion th.at. the vlaintift 3as eatablisned bis iitle. i::xt. A-1-•a stated earlier is a erii on in tb.e !aailj of Kaitnak..ltal IllCll. The suit roerty is included in tba'\ partilion deed. The name and other description of th.e suit ~ro.fierty t~3cf-.. with tae naae and other aescriptions given in Ex'i. A-1. The vlaint schedule .;?l'.'oi-'ert.; is itera .No.48 in G sc:1edule. It is seen th.at the properti ,)• dealt wita. by \!le allottee a» Sue The l lottee has sold the property o Laksbsd • in 1961, -{» {>e-- Again re see that tae roart e dealt wtn by Lestai'es family in ~t. a-} 1-~artition. In that ,parti.t.ion this proJert./ '.:'tas been g1.ven iro \a.e plaint-if:£' a urauch.. 1ne ,:1laintii! has produced 2:Xts. A-4 to A-12 t,ax receipts s:iowine tt1a.t Lrutsruai t.mma n.aa ..-,aio t. ne tax. ~ i.s. A-13 to A-15 are extracts of aettle11.ent. register of r1anjeri amsoui. e.xtra.ot of 1..esurvey resettleaent register 0f Hal.ijei.·i ,h.taO'.u and settlement re6istar of tuat Aruki2'ha.,& deaom res.lieetively. l:r1.10 t,:iat Fatta alone will n,,.., ;.;oiuer t.lt.ltS,... oat these regisers soul@ show that the roetty as treated as ae procrty vf t:1e i'eraons naiaed in those 1·egistera. It tl&a got great .1:/robs,tive value in assessing t.h.e title of a.re very crediole ctocc1w.ents !or determining -t.n.e title oft.he proery. ine counsel for tl:le a~pellant subai~ted t.!lat tne previous redo.a~t..1.011 ,.;acree will snow conclusively tua.t the defer.das had itle so sis proper¥» I canno'\ a.:,ree wi tll. hi, ie reiers re v tnae judgaent slid decree and ot,n.er

1.his 0.. 405 0f i ;;.;.,4 was a • aiit. for re@eapion 0f t'- mo.r·tge.ge. In cona.i.dering tb.e probative value of the I doowaents relating ~o the execution proceedings the first and for81loet \bing t:tw.t nae to oe looked into is tb.e suit document in O.S, 43 of 1954. The aellate court has taen great flf!in to consider in de.tf'5h t.be yalue of \!lese docaaen:ts. XaDJI He has examine.; ~t.. B-9 "\lle attiii dooo.iiflent and f'OllDd ,....:..,... c~. s..v-i.J..... ta.at. Ext • .B-9 will not take in the ..-..t vro~erty,.._ This finding ofooarse is s~riottsl.Y cl\al.le»ged by \b.e coansel for the appellant, Ia las nae cannot cnallenge tnia findillg. Since this ia a iindi:ug or !so\ • .au., I ave also exained the cori.·ectneas of t t.1.<-1 .finding. 1 aave ao lleei\at.ioA \o hold that he finding recorded by the sellete court on this issue is .i?er!ectl;y eo:.::reei. Now i\ ia eat.ablianed itiat the. % plaintiff as ot vs u o property and o h b as got the right to recover ~he property. Tnere ia no cs.se for the defendants that taey have perfected title oy adverse "osseasion. Tue a..-,Jtellate oour\ nae decreed tne suit. I find no error ln th.at d eoree. The eal ie ODlJ" to be dismissed. I do ao. In t.n.e oircwutances, no order. aa \o costs. SJ/- Varghese Kallia~h, Judge. // True Copy II ~~-··· ·········•