KAVUNNV CHAKKIAR Vs. GOVINDA GURUKKAL
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The appeal by the additional plaintiff, now represented by his legal representatives, arises out of a suit for recovery of 63 cents of land with a building thereon, on the strength of title. The suit was allowed by the Trial Court but was dismissed on the appeal taken by the first respondent first defendant.
(2.) The property in dispute admittedly belongs to the plaintiffs' tarwad. In 1113, there was a Karar (Ext. P1) in the tarwad under which the then Karnavan Kunjunni Chakkiar, relinquished his management in favour of Parameswara Chakkiar. the original plaintiff (hereinafter called merely as the plaintiff). There were some disputes and litigations in the tarwad and these were referred to arbitration, which led to an award Ext. P4, providing for a maintenance arrangement. The plaintiff's case in brief is as follows: In 1113 he leased the building to one Marath Achutha Menon. The first defendant (called for brief the defendant) began residing in the building under Achutha Menon and ran a 'Kalari'. Some time later he vacated the building but in 1118 again took it on a monthly rent of Rs. 3/-. While thus in occupation he attempted to trespass on the property and in order to cover the trespass created a letter in collusion with Kunjunni Chakkiar. The plaintiff thereupon sent him a lawyer's notice (of which Ext. P5 is a copy) on 19-2-1125 demanding surrender of the building with arrears of rent. On 20-2-1125 the defendant trespassed on the compound in which the building stands on the strength of the collusive letter (of which Ext. D1 is a copy) and on 24-2-1125 he sent a reply (Ext. P6) through his lawyer claiming that he was a lessee of the land and building under Kunjunni Chakkiar. The plaintiff and one Madhava Chakkiar, the seniormost member of another branch filed O. S. 278 of 1954 for recovery of the land and building. The defendant contested the suit, setting up the alleged lease from Kunjunni Chakkiar. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court by the judgment Ext. P7 dated 24-11-1956. This judgment was however reversed by the appellate Court which dismissed the suit (Ext. P11 dated 15-2-1958 is the judgment). The two plaintiffs thereupon preferred S. A. 487 of 1958 in the High Court, which dismissed the appeal by the judgment Ext. P12 dated 21-6-1962. The High Court held that a suit would lie only on behalf of the tarwad and not on behalf of any tavazhi and as there was no suit on behalf of the tarwad it had to be dismissed. Kunjunni Chakkiar died on 15-9-1957 and the plaintiff thereupon became the karnavan competent to represent the tarwad. He accordingly claimed recovery of the land and building with mesne profits from 20-2-1125, and some amounts by way of damages.
(3.) So far as relevant, the contentions of the defendant were that he had not committed any trespass and that he had not taken the building on rent in 1118. Kunjunni Chakkiar leased the building and land to him on 11-12-1112 for an annual rent of Rs. 36/-, Which was to be adjusted against the interest on the premium amount of Rs. 300 which he had received. Kunjunni Chakkiar had also given him the document Ext. D1 evidencing the terms of the lease. Since then he was in undisputed possession of the property as lessee and owing to his long adverse possession, the title of the plaintiff's tarwad was destroyed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.