VIJAYAN MENON Vs. ANSAL BUILDERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs:

(2.) Petitioner is the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 654 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit is one for recovery of possession, and the Respondent is the Defendant. P-5 order passed by the learned Sub Judge allowing the interlocutory application I.A. No. 4872 of 2008 filed by the Defendant for staying the suit and reference of the issue relating to tenancy under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to the Land Tribunal for determination is challenged by the Petitioner/Plaintiff in the writ petition invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Petitioner/Plaintiff claimed title over the suit property having an extent of 56 cents comprised in survey No. 476/8 of Kureekkad village as having obtained that property under a registered partition deed No. 1265 of 1971. The Defendant is a company engaged in land developments, construction of buildings and also doing real estate business. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant company approached him for sale of the suit property, but, the request made thereof was declined. However, taking advantage of the absence of the Petitioner who is stated to be residing at a distant place, according to him, the Defendant encroached upon the plaint property and filled it up with red earth and proceeded with development activities. At that stage, the suit was filed seeking recovery of possession of the suit property. The Defendant company resisting the suit claim filed a written statement in which it was contended that the Plaintiff has no title over the property. Alternatively, it was contended that if at all the Plaintiff had any prior title to the property, it has come to vest in the State on the advent of the Land Reforms Act. Suit property was under the enjoyment of a tenant one Varkey from 1932 and by successive assignments the tenancy rights over the property vested upon two persons under a registered document No. 2098 of 2005 and from those two persons, the Defendant company obtained possession in 2005 to develop that property was the case pleaded disputing the claim for recovery of the property on the basis of title by the Plaintiff