GOPALKRISHNA GUPTHAN Vs. AMMALU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff arises from a suit for injunction filed before the Munsiff, Ottapalam. The suit was dismissed by the Munsiff and that decision was confirmed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge.

(2.) The suit property is that blocked in S. Nos. 210/3 and 211 in Kadambazhipram Village. It belonged to Kongat Valiya Nair. In 1881 he demised it on kanam to one Krishnan Moothan and by successive assignments evidenced by Ext. A2 of 1919 and Ext. A3 of 1930 the rights of Krishnan Moothan devolved on the plaintiff's father. By Ext. A4 of 1933 the kanam was renewed. In Ext. A13 partition made in the plaintiff's family the property was set apart to the share of the plaintiff. In 1961 the second defendant, whose mother is the first defendant, trespassed upon the property and cut and removed timber saying that the property belonged to the first defendant. It was on these allegations that the plaintiff prayed for injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the property and interfering with his peaceful possession of the same.

(3.) The contest of the defendants is confined to the property blocked in Survey No. 211. They denied the plaintiff's title to and possession of that property. They admitted that the property belonged to Kongat Valiya Nair. According to them he demised the property on kanam to one Unni Ezhuthassan in 1912, Ext. B3 being a copy of the kanam document. Unni Ezhuthassan and another person executed a kanam document in respect of the property to one Kuttan Moothan in 1913, Ext. B21 being a copy of that document. After Kuttan Moothan's death his rights in the property by the provisions of a will executed by him devolved upon one Kunha. By assignment her rights devolved on the first defendant. Thereafter, according to the defendants, the first defendant is in possession of the property.