KUNJAMMA OOMMAN Vs. ALEXANDER MARIAMMA AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Alexander Mariamma And Another
Click here to view full judgement.
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. -
(1.) In this second appeal filed by the defendant, I do not find any grounds for interference and it has only to be dismissed.
(2.) The first plaintiff is the minor daughter of the second plaintiff who is her father. The wife of the second plaintiff and the mother of the first plaintiff is Sara who is the daughter of Yohannan. Yohannan executed a registered will evidenced by Ext. P.2 on 21.9.1918 under which the beneficiaries are the second plaintiff and Sara. Yohannan died on 11.7.1962. Sara predeceased Yohannan. Plaint item 1 covers an extent of 211/2 cents of land and plaint item 2 is a building in plaint item 1. The defendant executed Ext. P.1 rent-deed on 1.6.1961 to Yohannan in respect of plaint item 2. After the death of Yohannan the defendant executed Ext. P.7 rent-deed to the second plaintiff on 18.11.1962 in respect of plaint item 2. Since the title of the plaintiff was denied by the defendant the suit was instituted by them for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
(3.) The learned counsel for the defendant raised before me several contentions. The first was that since no probate of the will was obtained, it has to be held that plaintiffs have not established their title. In my view it is not necessary to consider this aspect because though Exts. P1 and P7 were denied by the defendant the Courts below have concurrently found them to be genuine. In view of Ext. P-7 the defendant is estopped from denying the title of the second plaintiff to plaint schedule item 2. The second plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to recovery of possession of the property from the defendant.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.