GOURIYAMMA Vs. SREEKUMARAN POTTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the 2nd plaintiff in a suit for michavaram and other dues under two 'Uzhavu Pattom' deeds, Exts. A and B. Ext. A is executed by Chacko Cheriyathu and Ext. B by Mani Mathew, in Mithunam 1052. The defendants are the successors-in-interest of those tenants. There is also a prayer for renewal fees, or recovery of possession in the alternative. The defendants contended that though Exts. A and B have been executed by the above said tenants Chacko Cheriyathu and Mani Mathew, they never held the properties under those demises, that the plaintiffs' illom had no title to the suit properties and even if they had any title they have lost the same by long adverse possession of the defendants and their predecessors-in-interest. The Munsif dismissed the suit. The Additional District Judge, on appeal by the 2nd plaintiff, found the title of the plaintiffs established, that the registration of the land taken in the name of the defendants' predecessors enured to the landlord, the plaintiffs' illom, but held that the defendants and their predecessors were in adverse possession of the property when they disclaimed their tenancy under the plaintiffs' illom, before the settlement authorities and therefore the plaintiffs' illom lost their title to the suit property and dismissed the suit with costs. Hence this second appeal by the 2nd plaintiff who is the assignee of the original 1st plaintiff.

(2.) The courts below have entered concurrent finding that the demises under Exts. A and B did not come to effect. It is not disputed that these documents were executed by the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants. Exts. A and B show that the demisees thereunder were already in possession of the property under the plaintiffs' illom when they executed those deeds. Credit was also given for the amount advanced under the prior demises towards the considerations under Exts. A and B. Further, those documents have been presented for registration by the demisees themselves. It is then ununderstandable what the courts below meant by saying that the documents did not take effect. There is no case that the demisees ever lost their possession in respect of the properties involved in Exts. A and B. If tenants in possession of the property make a renewal of their tenancy by documents executed by them and got registered by them, nothing further is required to show that the documents were acted upon. The subsequent possession of the holdings can only be under the demises executed in renewal by the tenants. The finding entered by the courts below that the plaintiff has not proved that the demises under Exts. A and B took effect is unwarranted and perverse. I hold that Exts. A and B took effect and subsequent possession of the properties by the demisees under Exts. A and B was only under those documents.

(3.) Ext. XII is a copy of the proceedings in a settlement enquiry proved and relied on by the defendants in this case. It shows that Mani Mathew made a statement before the settlement authorities on 14-3-1076 that he has accepted a demise of the land as per Ext. B from the plaintiffs' illom, but that acceptance was made on the representation made to him by the landlord that the land was his registered holding, and that since the land was ascertained by the authorities to be poramboke land the same may be registered in his name. Ext. XII shows that he had produced Ext. B before the authorities. It is from the date of this statement that the Subordinate Judge held the tenant's possession to be adverse to the landlord. There is nothing on record to show that the landlord was a party to these proceedings, nor to show that he was aware of the above statement. The Additional District Judge himself found: "Thus there is no positive and reliable evidence to show that the illom was a party to the settlement proceedings regarding plaint items." The question then is whether the subsequent possession of the demisees under Exts. A and B or their successors would be adverse to the plaintiffs' illom. The proposition is well settled that a tenant cannot by any unilateral act on his part alter the character of his possession of the holding. I need only quote Rustomji on Limitation, where the learned author deals with this matter at pages 753-756 of the 6th Edn. of his treatise,