SASIDHARAN PILLAI Vs. NANDINI VIJAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Second Appeal arising from the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Kottarakkara in R.F.A. No.93 of 2003 reversing judgment and decree of the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara in O.S. No.151 of 2000, the following substantial questions of law are framed for a decision:

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants 3 and 4-defendants 3 and 4 expired during the pendency of the Second Appeal and that in the nature of claim they have made, their legal representatives are not impleaded in the appeal. Hence the appeal has to proceed with appellants 1 and 2 alone on record.

(3.) THE appellants contended that the respondent has no title or possession of item Nos.1 and 2 and that the said properties are not identifiable. The suit properties are tharisu land belonging to the State Government. It is in the possession of the temple. The Government and the Temple are necessary parties to the suit. It is further contended that the suit properties formed part of 1.34 acres of Government land in Old Sy. No.674/6. Vava Kunju, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent claimed right over 60 cents (forming part of 1.34 acres) claiming that he got assignment of the said 60 cents. The said Vava Kunju also made a claim for assignment of 48 cents out of the remaining 74 cents of Government land. A counter claim was made by the Temple for assignment. The application preferred by Vava Kunju was dismissed. The Government, as per G.O(Ms.) No.22 of dated 07.01.1963 accorded sanction for assignment of 74 cents to the Temple. Challenging the said order, Vava Kunju filed O.P. No.220 of 1963 in this Court. This Court dismissed the Original Petition leaving it open to Vava Kunju to agitate the right claimed by him in the civil court. Vava Kunju filed O.S.No.300 of 1973 for a declaration that he has perfected title over the 48 cents by adverse possession and imitation and for other reliefs. In that suit the State and Temple were made parties. That suit was dismissed. The appeal also was dismissed. In the Second Appeal there was some sort of settlement between the parties but that settlement was not effected.