SUBRAMANIAN Vs. KESAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.300 of 1964 on the file of the Munsiff s court, Cochin.

(2.) The suit was one for recovery of possession based on title. Though the land belongings to the appellant there was a building which a constructed by the defendants. The first defendant is the son and the second defendant was the mother. (The second defendant died during the proceedings and subsequently her legal representatives were impleaded). Defendants 1 and 2 jointly acquire4d an extent of 31 cents pf land and hence according to the plaintiff they are not entitled to kudikidappu right. The suit was decreed as prayed for. There was an appeal and second appeal. As per the decision in the second appeal S.A. 787 of 1975 this court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and remanded the case to the trial court. Subsequently, the plaint was amended and additional written statement was also filed. After considering the evidence available on record, the trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then preferred A.S. 44 of 1981 and that was allowed and the matter was remanded. The trial court again considered all the claims and dismissed the suit. Challenging the same the plaintiff again filed an appeal. But the appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the appeal. It is against the said judgment and decree that the plaintiff has come up with this second appeal.

(3.) The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this second appeal are: