RAVEENDRANATHAN Vs. MEENAKSHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE second appeals arise from the common judgment and decree of II Additional District Court, Kollam in A.S.Nos.39 of 2008 and 40 of 2008, respectively, arising from the common judgment and decree in O.S.Nos.131 of 2000 and 57 of 2000, respectively of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kollam.

(2.) RESPONDENT in R.S.A.No.223 of 2012 is the mother of the appellants. She filed O.S.No.131 of 2000 for a decree for mandatory injunction to direct the appellants vacate the building in the suit property and for prohibitory injunction. She claimed that the plaint A schedule in O.S.No.131 of 2000 belongs to and is in her possession as per settlement deed No.908 of 1955. Plaint B schedule are the movables kept in the building in the plaint A schedule. Appellants are stated to be in permissive occupation of the building. Revoking that permission the respondent in R.S.A.No.223 of 2012 wanted them to vacate the building. But they did not do so. Hence the suit.

(3.) I has come in evidence and it is not disputed also that by virtue of settlement deed No.908 of 1955 the plaint A schedule in O.S.No.131 of 2000 belongs to the respondent. The contention is that the respondent executed document No.31 of 1983 and though it is styled as a 'Will', it is in effect a gift. Courts below observed that in spite of giving opportunity including a remand of the case, appellants did not produce a copy of the said document so that, the courts could consider whether the document is a Will or a gift deed. Appellants who claimed title as per that document should have produced a copy of that document at least. According to the respondent, she cancelled Will No.31 of 1983 and executed other documents. The appellants cannot therefore claim title over the plaint A and B schedules. The title of the respondent as per settlement deed No.908 of 1955 should stand. Hence the courts below have rightly accepted the case of the respondent that the appellants are in permissive occupation of the plaint A schedule. On revocation of that permission appellants are bound to vacate the plaint A schedule.