JOHN Vs. THAIKKAD PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second appeal is by the plaintiff, who is the owner of the suit property measuring 131/2 cents. The first defendant is the Thaikkad Panchayat, in which the plaintiff was a member. The suit is one for recovery of the property on the strength of title. Admittedly the appellant gave possession of the property to the Panchayat. His case is that surrender was conditional on the Panchayat constructing its office building in the property within one year in the name of his deceased father and the condition was not fulfilled. He would also say that no deed was executed and he did not divest himself of his title. The Panchayat said that the property was unconditionally surrendered and a kychit was also executed, but it was clandestinely removed by the appellant with the connivance of some Panchayat employees. Both the courts held, on the evidence, that title and possession were unconditionally surrendered by the appellant and hence the suit was dismissed.

(2.) The main question to be considered is whether title still vests with the appellant or it was surrendered in favour of the Panchayat. The first point to be considered in that respect is whether a Kychit surrendering his title unconditionally was executed. Secondly, it has to be considered whether such a kychit, if any, is sufficient to divest the appellant of his title and invest the same in the Panchayat. If these two points are found in favour of the Panchayat, the second appeal has only to be dismissed.

(3.) Execution of the Kychit is denied. The Kychit has not been produced. It is said to be missing. The case of the Panchayat is that it was clandestinely removed by the appellant. For that, there is no evidence. Such a case came only when the appellant issued Ext. A5 notice on 8-7-1980 to surrender the property. Then the President of the Panchayat filed Ext. B2 first information before the police on 16-6-1980 and gave Ext. A6 reply on 23-6-1980. The complaint ended in failure, as seen from Ext. A7 order dated 3-7-1981. Secondary evidence was also not adduced regarding execution of the kychit.