APPU Vs. MANNADIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant against the order of remand passed by the learned District Judge after recording his opinion on the question of res judicata already decided by the Trial Court. As I am of the opinion that this order of remand is justified, I do not think it necessary or desirable to express any opinion on the merits, which will have to be gone into by the Trial Court.

(2.) It is enough to state that the suit was for recovery of possession on the basis of title of Maruthakkavu Temple paramba of an extent of about 99 cents.

(3.) The suit was contested on the ground that the defendant has obtained an oral lease about 25 years back from a karnavan of the plaintiffs tarwad on condition of his paying an annual rent of Re. 1/- and this is to be utilised by the defendant for lighting a lamp in front of the said temple. He also pleaded that the suit itself is barred by res judicata on the ground that in respect of an acquisition proceedings evidenced by Ext. B4, the position of the defendant as a tenant of at any rate a part of the property has been upheld by a court and he has been allowed to draw out a portion of the compensation on that basis. Therefore, the plea of the defendant was that the principle must be applied and extended to his having the tenancy right over the entire properties which are the subject matter of the present suit also.