HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) No error of law.
(2.) A coowner who is in possession of the entire property on the understanding that he will account to the remaining coowners for their due share of the profits -- the appellant 1st defendant's case that he was a lessee of his coowner plaintiff in respect of the latter's share in the property has been rejected by the courts below -- is not a person who has agreed to pay rent or other consideration for being allowed to possess and enjoy the land of another so as to make him a tenant as defined by the body of S.2(57) of Act 1 of 1964. Nor is he a person who cultivates the land of another -- the land in this case is paddy land in the Kuttanad area -- for a remuneration and with the risk of cultivation so as to make him a licensee under S.2(33); nor again does he undertake the cultivation under an arrangement by which he is to share the produce with his coowners so as to make him a varamdar under S.2(60). The appellant 1st defendant's claim to fixity under S.13 of the Act was therefore rightly dismissed by the courts below and the plaintiff's suit for partition and separate possession of his admitted share rightly decreed.
(3.) I dismiss this appeal with costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.