LAKSHMI Vs. LAKSHMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2 to 7 are the appellants. Plaintiff (respondent) filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint scheduled building on the strength of his title and for arrears of rent as well as future rent. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief. The learned Sub Judge allowed A.S. 190 of 1987 and decreed the suit. Claim regarding arrears of rent was not allowed.

(2.) Plaintiff's case is that the plaint scheduled land and building belonged to Kumari Varghese, that she gifted the property as per Ext. A-1 gift deed dated 11-7-1978 to him, that the building in the property was given on rent to the original defendant on 15-7-1978 and that thereafter he defaulted payment of rent. Suit notice was sent to the original defendant. He sent reply denying the lease and setting up tenancy under Kankole devaswom.

(3.) As the defendants denied title of the plaintiff the prime question that arises for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his title to the property. Plaintiff relies on Ext.A-1 gift deed executed by Kumary Varghese in his favour. In Ext. A-36 the power of attorney in favour of P.W.1 Kumary Varghese's possession over the property (portion of which is the plaint schedule property) is mentioned. This was long before the suit. Kumary Varghese obtained purchase certificate as per Ext. A- 11 long before suit Ext. A-10 is the document of assignment in favour of Kumary Varghese. It is contended by the appellants that in view of Ext. a-11 there was no necessity to get an assignment in favour of Kumary Varghese. The explanation given by P.W.1 is that his daughter's husband insisted upon an assignment deed and that was the reason why it was got executed. Plaintiff has established his case that Madhavan was a tenant under Kankole devaswom from whom Kumary Varghese obtained right in the property. P.W.2 was examined to prove that Madhavan was a tenant under Kankole devaswom. Ext. X-l is the register maintained by Kankole devaswom. Ext. X-2 shows that Parameswara Warriar who is alleged to have issued Exts. B-1 and B-2 took charge on 13-10-1972. Ext.B-1 is alleged to have been issued by Parameswara Warriar. It is dated 13-1-1972. Obviously this document cannot be accepted as true as Parameswara Warriar took charge in the devaswom only on 13-10-1972. There is also no corresponding entry in Ext.B-2 with regard to Exts. B-1 and B-2. P.W.2 stated that Ext.B-2 does not contain Jama number and the property mentioned in Ext.B-2 does not belong to the Devaswom.