SARALA Vs. LITTLE FLOWER MISSION
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Little Flower Mission
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) In S.A. No. 181 of 1992, the appellants are the plaintiff's in O.S. No. 432 of 1982 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha. In S.A. No. 184 of 1992, the appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 997 of 1992 on the file of the same court. While O.S. No. 432 of 1982 was filed for declaration of title and injunction, O.S. No. 997 of 1982 was filed by the defendant in the earlier suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title. Both the courts below decreed the suit in respect of item 2 of plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 997 of 1982 and allowed the prayer for recovery of possession. The other suit was dismissed concurrently. Since the dispute relates to the same property it is sufficient if the facts in O.S. No. 997 of 1982 is stated and the result of the other suit will depend upon the discussion and result in O.S. No. 997 of 1982.
(2.) O.S. No. 997 of 1982 is filed by the Little Flower Roman Catholic Church. According to the plaintiff, plaint item 1 is in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff. Plaint item 2 is having an extent of 12.5 cents and is in the possession of the defendant. It is unauthorised and unlawful. The suit is filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff and recovery of possession of item 2. The defendant contended that he is in absolute possession of 22 cents scheduled in O.S. No. 432 of 1982 and that he has acquired title by adverse possession and limitation. Item 1 did not belong to the plaintiff. The property on the eastern side of the wall of the church is in the possession of the defendant and his predecessors since 1093 M.E. (1918). The description of item 2 is vague. The defendant is in possession of 22 cents and the extent shown as 12 1/2 cents in item 2 is wrong. The plaintiff filed a replication reiterating the contention in the plaint and denying the allegations in the written statement.
(3.) In O.S. No. 432 of 1982 the appellant / plaintiff contended that the suit property is portion of the property covered by Vempatta Adharam No. 649/1093 (M.E.) (1918) in favour of Kochu Pillai and his wife which right was assigned in favour of plaintiff's mother as per document No. 649/1093. Out of the entire 44 cents, 22 cents was surrendered to the defendant / respondent church as per release deed executed 56 years ago as the church had obtained a sale deed from the original jenmi. Afterwards, the church constructed a wall separating the two properties 25 years ago. The plaintiff got the plaint schedule property as per gift deed No. 795/63 from his mother. There was a mistake in the survey number described in the document. Though the correct survey number was 227/9 the lease deed showed it as 225/4. The plaintiff has effected substantial improvement in the land. There was an O.A. for purchase of landlord's right filed as O.A. No. 519 of 1995. The O.A. was dismissed in view of the wrong survey number shown in the lease deed. In the counter filed in that O.A., the defendant, admitted that even prior to 1964 the defendant and his predecessors were in possession as trespassers of the plaint schedule property and it was found out only in 1964. In view of the dismissal of the O.A. and the appeals therefrom the plaintiff apprehended forceful entry by the defendant and hence the suit was filed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.