CHEEKU ANTONY Vs. MATHEW CHEEKU
LAWS(KER)-1968-6-6
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on June 19,1968

CHEEKU ANTONY Appellant
VERSUS
MATHEW CHEEKU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The plaintiff is the appellant; he is the elder son of the first respondent, the first defendant; and the second respondent, the second defendant, is the second son of the first respondent. The second appeal arises out of a suit for partition, which has been dismissed by both the lower courts.
(2.) The appellant and the first respondent together executed Ex. P1 in 1114 and took a site from the owner thereof. They lived together in a building on the site; but in June 1950, the appellant left the place and took another plot on kudikidappu right and started living there. The first respondent put up a new building on the property and assigned his rights thereto under Ex. D7 in August 1956 to the second respondent. The suit as laid was for the partition of the site as well as the building. Before me the claim for a share in the building has not been pressed; and the arguments are confined to a share in the site alone.
(3.) The first contention is that Ex. P1 was a lease arrangement. The Munsiff has considered this question and has held that the arrangement was only a kudikidappu and not a lease. The Subordinate Judge, however, thinks that the arrangement under Ex. P1 was a lease arrangement. Ex. P1 is called "coolicharthu"; and it contains a provision for payment of Rs. 12/- per year, one rupee to be paid every month. Mr. M. K. Narayana Menon, the counsel of the appellant, argues that "coolicharthu" means rental agreement. I do not think that the word "coolicharthu'' should necessarily mean a rental arrangement. It may as well mean a kudikidappu arrangement, under which the transferee or licensee agrees to pay consideration for the use of the land. The word "pattacheettu" and the word "pattom" were common expressions well known to the parties; and they did not choose to use those expressions and preferred to use only "coolicharthu". The provisions of the document also do not indicate that the arrangement was necessarily a lease arrangement. Therefore, I am in agreement with the view expressed by the Munsiff that the arrangement was only a kudikidappu arrangement.;


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