LAWS(KER)-2011-2-154

IGNATIOUS LAYOLA Vs. JERALD

Decided On February 16, 2011
IGNATIOUS LAYOLA Appellant
V/S
JERALD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.No.860/2002 on the file of Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara is the appellant. Defendants are the respondents. Appellant instituted the suit for declaration of title to the plaint schedule property and for permanent prohibitory injunction.

(2.) PLAINT schedule property is forty cents in R.S.No.319/2 of Kulathoor Village. It is the admitted case that eighty cents, including the plaint schedule property, originally belonged to Alexander. Appellant is claiming title to the plaint schedule property based on Exhibit A6 Otty Kuzhikanam deed executed on 28.11.1956 by Alexander in favour of Simiyon Netto. Exhibit A1 sale deed was executed by his son in favour of appellant on 30.3.1993. It is the case that he has title to the plaint schedule property under Exhibit A6. Respondents would contend that Alexander created Exhibit A7 otty kuzhikanam deed dated 7th Makaram 1117 M.E. in favour of Rosamma. Subseuqnetly, under Exhibit A22 (Exhibit B1) he assigned his rights over the entire eighty cents in favour of Rosily, who, subsequently, assigned it under Exhibit B5 assignment deed dated 8.1.1971 in favour of M.P.Immanueal, who, under Exhibit B6 sale deed dated 17.8.1977, assigned it in favour of first respondent. It is, therefore, contended that appellant has no right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property.

(3.) ARGUMENT of the learned counsel is that under Exhibit A6 otty kuzhikanam deed, Simiyon Netto, the predecessor in interest of the appellant, obtained the property and subsequently, under Exhibit A1 sale deed, son of the mortgagee, transferred his rights in favour of the appellant and since then, appellant has been in possession of the property and hence, he is entitled to the decree sought for. Learned counsel would argue that though courts below relied on Exhibit A22, it is not valid, as the subject matter of the assignment deed was mortgaged earlier and therefore, first respondent cannot claim any right over plaint schedule property.