SOURIYAR Vs. LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 2, 5 and 6 in O. S. 159 of 1122 on the file of the District Court of Anjikaimal has filed this appeal against the preliminary decree passed in the suit. The suit was for recovery of the plaint schedule property with arrears of rent. Plaint items 1 and 2 belong to the mother of the plaintiffs. They were outstanding on lease in the family of the defendants from 1082 onwards. On 1-1-1096 defendants 1 and 2 took them on lease. Item No. 3 called x'21'07) cmz3 was sold in revenue auction by the government and was purchased by the 1st defendant. He sold his rights in the property to the plaintiffs' mother under a registered document Ext. N in 1098. DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 then executed a fresh lease deed Ext. A and in the schedule of properties to the lease deed besides items Nos. 1 and 2, item No. 3 was also included. The plaintiffs' case is that even though all the three items are shown in the schedule only item Nos. 1 and 2 were actually leased and that item no. 3 was entrusted to the defendants as the plaintiffs' agents or care-takers.

(2.) THE first defendant died and defendants 3 to 6 are his legal representatives. THE defendants contended that item No. 3 is also being enjoyed by them as lessees, that it had been reclaimed and planted with valuable kuzhikoors and that the plaintiffs or their mother have not spent any money for the purpose. THEy set up an agreement whereby the arrears of pattom till 1112 was fixed at Rs. 2000?- and for the reduction of future pattom. THEy claimed to be agriculturists entitled to the benefits under the Agriculturists relief Act. In 1124, Proclamation No. 6 was passed staying suits for eviction filed by the landlords and so the plaintiffs became disentitled to recover possession of items 1 and 2. So they applied for amendment of the plaint claiming recovery of plaint item No. 3 on the ground that there was no lease in respect of that item and that the Proclamation does not apply. THE amendment was not allowed by the trial court, but this court in C. R. P. 536 of 1950 al