Decided on August 12,1955

Venkiteswara Iyer Appellant
Cheriyathu Mathen And Anr. Respondents


Varadaraja Iyengar, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for eviction on the basis of title which has -been concurrently dismissed by both the courts below.
(2.) THE Plaintiff's father purchased the disputed property in court -sale held on 14 -10 -1107 in, execution of the decree in O.S. No. 1179 of 1101 which had been passed against the father of Defendants 1 and 2 on foot of a hypothecation bond executed by him. Ext. A is the sale sannad. There was obstruction by the 1st Defendant at the time of delivery in execution. Overruling this obstruction the Plaintiff's father obtained delivery on 2 -8 -1108 -under Ext. C delivery kychit. The Plaintiff's case was that an oral lease of the property was given to the 1st Defendant in 1115 and rents were paid regularly till 1118, but the judgment of the High Court dated 19 -11 -1114 were thereafter defaulted. The suit was filed on 30 -6 -1121. It was in the first instance based upon the alleged oral lease but subsequently it was demanded into one on title. The 1st Defendant denied the Plaintiff's. title and also the oral lease set up by the Plaintiff. He claimed that there was no actual delivery of possession under the sale sannad in favour of the Plaintiff's father. The possession of the property was on, the other hand continuously with his father until his death and thereafter with him. He also pleaded adverse possession and limitation.
(3.) THE courts below concurrently found that die title was with the Plaintiff but that the oral lease Was not true. They further held that the Plaintiff, had failed to prove possession within 12 years of the suit and therefore the suit was barred avid accordingly 'dismissed the suit. Hence this second Appeal by the Plaintiff.;

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