CHAMI ALIAS RAMACHANDRAN Vs. P V VENUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Execution First Appeal and the Original petition are connected cases and therefore, both cases are disposed of jointly by the common judgment. The claim petitioner is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order dated 23.3.2012 in E.A.No.590/2008 in E.P.No.76/2008 in O.S.No.337/1989 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad. By the impugned order, the execution court dismissed the claim petition finding that the applicant failed to make out a case that he has title and possession of the decree schedule property since 1963 as claimed. The parties hereinafter are referred to as the claim petitioner and respondents as arrayed in the impugned order.

(2.) THE claim petition was once heard and dismissed by order dated 6.7.2010. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal the claim petitioner filed Execution First Appeal No.38/2010 before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 21.10.2010 remanded the case for fresh disposal with a direction to reconsider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence. The impugned order was passed after taking additional evidence and after hearing both sides.

(3.) THE claim petitioner's case in short is as follows: The petition schedule properties originally belonged to P.V.Ayya Pattar, the jenmi, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 14 in the suit. The three items of properties described in the schedule attached to the claim petition is outstanding on lease with one Mallu. The claim petitioner on 12.4.1963 took possession of the properties from the said Mallu as an assignee. Lease deed was written on white paper. The claim petitioner put up a thatched shed, constructed well and improved properties. He has been paying rent to Kitta @ Krishnan, who is the son of original tenant, Mallu. It is pleaded that with the commencement of Kerala Land Reforms Act, the rights of the jenmi and intermediary vested with the Government and the claim petitioner is entitled to purchase the right, title and interest in the properties. It is pleaded that later, the legal heirs of Kitta @ Krishnan, namely, respondents 18 & 19 assigned their right in their properties in favour of the claim petitioner as per document No.4076/2007 and rectification deed No.5721/2008. It is also pleaded that the legal heirs of jenmi, namely, respondents 1 to 16, and the legal heirs of intermediary, namely, respondents 17 to 19, manage to obtain an order in the ceiling proceedings in favour of respondents 1 to 16. The claim petitioner is not a party to the proceedings and therefore, he is not bound by the order of the Taluk Land Board in S.M.No.1270/1997. It is also contended that suppressing the fact that the claim petitioner was in actual possession of the property, the members of the jenmi family, namely, respondents 1 to 16, obtained a preliminary decree and a final decree in O.S.No.337/1989. On the basis of the said decrees, it is stated that the properties which is in the exclusive possession of the applicant was ordered to be delivered. According to the claim petitioner, respondents 1 to 16 have no right over any portion of the properties claimed by the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to purchase the said property since he is a tenant entitled to fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.