BHASKARAN NAIR Vs. SANKARANARAYANAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit property belonged in jenmom to the Avanipuram Devaswom. It was given possession to the tharavad of the plaintiffs on karaima for doing kazhakam services in the temple. Sankaran Nair, father of the defendant, was also a member of the tharavad and he is the uncle of the plaintiffs, being their mother's brother. There was Ext. A1 partition in the tharavad in 1098. The plaint schedule property was included in the share allotted to the branch of the plaintiffs and their mother. Kazhakam services were directed in the partition deed to be performed by the four members, including Sankaran Nair, in rotation. Admittedly, Sankaran Nair was performing the services till his death in 1952. The case of the plaintiffs is that thereafter themselves and the defendant were performing the services. They also maintained that all along they were in possession of the property. But the case of the defendant is that Sankaran Nair was in possession of the property and performing services till his death and thereafter he is in exclusive possession and services were rendered by him alone. It is his further case that he attorned to the Devaswom and an attempt made in 1962 to take forcible possession from him was successfully resisted jointly by him and the Devaswom.

(2.) It was in this background that the original of Ext. A2 mortgage for the suit property happened to be executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant and one Raman Pillai for Rs. 400/- with a term of two years. From Ext. A2 it is seen that the document was presented for registration by Raman Pillai. Defendant is said to be a dependant of Raman Pillai, who subsequently died unmarried and issueless. Nobody is impleaded as his heir on the assumption that his right over the mortgage also vested on the defendant as per the terms of Ext. A2 itself. That is how Ext. A2 was worded. The suit for redemption was filed as if the defendant is in possession under Ext. A2.

(3.) Defendant disclaimed the original of Ext. A2 and said that it is a fraudulent document executed behind his back in an attempt to get he property when the attempt to take forcible possession failed. He claimed independent possession under the Devaswom and said that he never took the mortgage or pay any amount. The authority of the plaintiffs to execute such a document was also denied.