SOMANI G CHAILIE VARGHEESE Vs. L SARASWATHY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal heirs of the original plaintiff in O.S.214 of 1987 before the Munsiff's court, Kayamkulam are the appellants. THEy were non-suited by the lower appellate court.

(2.) THE plaintiff claimed to have obtained the plaint schedule property as per Ext.A1 partition deed dated 7.3.1973. Prior to the partition, the entire properties were being looked after by the plaintiff's brother Joseph T.Varghese. While he was managing the affairs, he entered into Ext.A16 agreement dated 30.5.1967 whereby the first defendant's husband Pankajakshan Pillai took the building in the property on lease for running a tutorial college. After the partition deed, intimation was given to Pankajakshan Pillai, who accepted the plaintiff as his landlord. Pankajakshan Pillai sub let a portion of the shed to one C.K.Vijayan. Plaintiff filed O.P.(R.C.) 39 of 1974 before the Rent Control Court, Kayamkulam. Eviction was ordered. Pankajakshan Pillai preferred R.C.A.5 of 1979 and the same was allowed and the plaintiff was directed to approach the civil court for eviction. Though the plaintiff filed R.C.R.P. 7 of 1982, during the pendency of the revision Pankajakshan Pillai died and since no steps were taken to implead his legal representatives, the R.C.R.P. was dismissed. Plaintiff filed O.S.138 of 1978 seeking a decree for injunction against Pankajakshan Pillai, which was decreed. Pankajakshan Pillai filed A.S.97 of 1981 before the District Court, Mavelikara and during the pendency of that appeal Pankajakshan Pillai died though the present defendants 1 to 4 were impleaded as his legal heirs, the lower appellate court held that the decree being a personal one, it did not survive. THEreafter the surrender of the premises was sought for, which was not heeded to by the legal heirs of Pankajakshan Pillai. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE disappointed defendants took up the matter in appeal as A.S. 70 of 994. THE lower appellate court found that the appellants before it were entitled to the protection of Section 106 of the KLR Act and accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.