R CHANDRABHANU Vs. R VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Thodupuzha in OS No.252/2013 followed by those of the Additional District Court-IV, Thodupuzha in AS No.11/2015, the defendant has come up in Second Appeal.

(2.) The suit is one for declaration of the ownership of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule building and for recovery of possession of the said building from the defendant and also for recovery of damages for unlawful occupation.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that the properties including the plaint schedule property belonged to Manappattu family of which the plaintiff is also a member. The family property was partitioned through Ext.A1 partition deed of 1985. The plaint schedule property was allotted to the share of one R.Mohan Kumar, who is one of the brothers of the plaintiff. The said R.Mohan Kumar thereafter, sold the property to the mother through Ext.A2 sale deed of 1989. Subsequently, the mother gifted the properties to the plaintiff through Ext.A3 gift deed of 1994. The plaintiff has accepted the gift and has allegedly become the owner of the property. Since the plaintiff was doing business in UK, he had permitted the defendant, being his younger brother, to occupy the building. Thereafter, through Ext.A9 lawyer's notice dated 14.12.2012, the plaintiff had revoked the licence granted to the defendant to occupy the building and demanded surrender of vacant possession of the building. Ext.A9 evoked a response in the form of Ext.A12 by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, through Ext.A12, the defendant had forwarded untenable contentions and has not cared to surrender the vacant possession of the building and hence, the suit.