KOCHU LAKSHMI Vs. VELAYUDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the decision of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Trivandrum in L. A. R No 36 of 1974, relating to apportionment of compensation in respect of 15.87 Ares of land acquired from out of Sy. No. 1930/1 and 1932/1 of Chengazhassery Village. The extent acquired from Sy No. 1930/1 is 5.12 Ares and from Sy. No. 1932/1 is 10.75 Ares. The total compensation in deposit in the civil court for the purpose of apportionment among the rival, claimants is Rs. 11,343 81. The contest is between claimants 2, 5 and 6 on the one hand, and claimants 1, 7, 8 and 9 on the other. Claimants 3 and 4 support claimants 2, 5 and 6, and claim their share of compensation separately

(2.) Claimants 11 and 12 represent the rival jenmies in respect of the property. They have filed a statement that adjudication of their respective claims inter se need not be done in these proceedings as a suit is pending in respect of their claim to the jenmom title, and the question as to who is entitled to the jenmom rights will be decided in that suit.

(3.) The question for consideration therefore relates to the claim of tenancy between the rival claimants in this reference. It is the admitted case of all the parties that the property belonged in jenmom to Chithumala Bhagavathi Elankom Temple and that Kaliambi Narayanan had pankuvaram right in respect of this property Ext. B1 dated 16-2-1101 is the document under which this property and other items were held by Kaliambi Narayanan. The acquired property is included in the B schedule to Ext. B1 and shows it was a pankuvaram arrangement for a period of one year. It is also seen that Narayanan had paid 1050 fanams as premium to the Jenmi at the time when the property was granted on pankuvaram. Narayanan died in 1959, after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. His legal heirs are claimant No. 2 his second wife, claimants 5. 6 and deceased Velayudhan, his three sons and claimants 3 and 4 his daughters. Claimants 5 and 6 are the sons of Narayanan and the 2nd claimant. Claimants 3 and 4 and deceased Velayudhan are the children of Narayanan in his first wife, Narayanan Velayudhan also died in 1969. The 7th claimant is his wife and claimants, 1, 8 and 9 are his children. According to claimants 2, 5 and 6 and also claimants 3 and 4 who support them, the compensation in respect of the tenancy right in the property is to be apportioned among the wife and all the children of deceased Kaliambi Narayanan as the tenancy belonged to him and on his death devolved on his wife and children. This claim to compensation is opposed by claimants 1, 7, 8 and 9 the legal representatives of Narayanan Velayudhan. According to them on the death of Kaliambi Narayanan the property was lying fallow for about three months and there was a fresh oral engagement by the jenmi in favour of Narayanan Velayudhan. He was a tenant in respect of the property and on his death in 1969 the tenancy rights devolved on his legal heirs who are claimants 1, 7,8 and 9. They had applied to the Land Tribunal, Trivandrum for the assignment of the landlord's rights in respect of these properties and had obtained the purchase certificates Exts. A1 and A2 dated 13-11-1975 relating to the aforesaid two survey numbers. Exts. A1 and A2 are conclusive in regard to their absolute title to the property and the entire amount of compensation should be paid to them. The court below accepting Exts. A1 and A2, held that the property by virtue of these certificates of purchase vests absolutely in claimants 1, 7, 8 and 9 and they are entitled to the entire compensation in respect of the property. There is a further direction in the judgment for deposit of Rs. 3037.50 being the balance compensation due to the jenmies in respect of the property covered by the purchase certificate Ext. A2. It is also found that the entire compensation under the Land Reforms Act with respect to Ext A1 purchase certificate had been paid by these claimants. They had paid one instalment of Rs 202.50 towards the compensation due to the jenmi in respect of the second item covered by Ext. A2 purchase certificate. It is against this decision of the lower court that claimants 2, 5 and 6 have filed the above appeal.