PARAMESWARAN NADAR CHELLAPAN NADAR Vs. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI KRISHNAN NAIR
LAWS(KER)-1963-2-10
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on February 15,1963

PARAMESWARAN NADAR CHELLAPAN NADAR Appellant
VERSUS
PARAMESWARAN PILLAI KRISHNAN NAIR Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

CLEN LEVEN ESTATES LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(KER)-1972-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
JAYARAMAN VS. JELHAMA [LAWS(MAD)-1995-3-86] [REFERRED TO]
EMERALD VALLEY ESTATE LIMITED BADAGULI MYSORE STATE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2000-6-13] [REFERRED]
ABOOSA VS. ASHRAF [LAWS(KER)-2005-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
RAJALAKSHMI AMMAL VS. V RAMANATHAN [LAWS(KER)-2012-6-92] [REFERRED TO]
VEDAMANI PALAYYA VS. UMMINI NADAR KOCHUKRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-1973-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
CHEEKU ANTONY VS. MATHEW CHEEKU [LAWS(KER)-1968-6-6] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The short question is, can a person who has put up a building in another's land, but is not in possession thereof, be given a decree for possession And, but for the lower appellate court and the long and learned argument advanced in support thereof, I should have thought it unnecessary to say more than that he cannot.
(2.)The property in suit is a piece of land, 33 cents in extent, with a house on it. The land forms part of Survey No. 1814/A of Randamada Village. The whole of the survey field, which is 2.64 acres in extent, belonged at one time to the family of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs claimed that the 33 cents of land in suit fell to their share in their family partition under Ext. P.3, dated 8th Edavam 1105 M. E. (21st May 1930 A. D). After thus getting the land, the plaintiffs built a house on it, and, on 1st November 1956, they orally let out the house to the 1st defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 3 and the 1st defendant has since then been living in the property with his wife, the 2nd defendant, and his father, the 3rd defendant. However, in reply to a notice to quit issued by the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant denied the lease and set up title in himself. Hence the present suit, based on title, in which the plaintiffs claimed a decree declaring that they were entitled to and were in possession of the land and the building and for the recovery of the building from the hands of the defendants. The plaintiffs also asked that, in case it should be found that the defendants were in possession of any part of the land, they should also be given a decree for possession of that part.
(3.)The 1st defendant alone contested the suit the remaining two defendants may therefore be ignored and I shall hereafter refer to the 1st defendant as merely the defendant and his case was that the house in his occupation was not on the plaintiffs' land and that the suit property was not the property allotted to the plaintiffs in the partition under Ext. P 3. The house stands on the 11 cents of land allotted under the partition to another member of the plaintiffs' family, Raghavan Pillai by name. The defendant bought this land from Raghavan Pillai on 11th February 1952, built the house, and has been living in it since then. The house was not built by the plaintiffs. Neither the house nor the 11 cents of land on which it stands belonged to the plaintiffs and the lease set up by the plaintiffs is false.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.