SURENDERAN NAIR Vs. S. MOHANKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal arises from the judgment and decree of learned Additional Munsiff, Neyyattinkara in O.S.No.956 of 2005 as confirmed by the learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara in A.S.No.143 of 2007. Respondent, claiming title over the suit property and the building thereon as per Ext.A2, sale deed No.5692 of 1978 sought eviction of appellant from the said building. According to the respondent, plaint A schedule and other items originally belonged to the tharwad of Parvathy Amma Narayani Amma, as per partition deed No.1487 of 1103. Plaint A schedule and other items were allotted to sub tharward of the said Narayani Amma. While so, there was a partition among the said Narayani Amma and others as per document No.5203 of 1951. Plaint A schedule was allotted to the mother of Narayani Amma as per document no. 5203 of 1951. On the death of the mother, there was yet another partition as per document No. 2348 of 1957. Plaint A schedule was allotted to the share of Narayani Amma. She executed Ext.A2, assignment deed in favour of the respondent, it is claimed. It is the further case of respondent that in the year, 1957 Kunjukrishna Pillai, predecessor -in -interest of the appellant was allowed to occupy plaint B schedule building (situated in plaint A schedule) to run a tea shop. He constructed a lean -to with the permission of predecessor -in -interest of respondent. Kunjukrishna Pillai filed O.A.No.736 of 1970 in the Land Tribunal claiming kudikidappu. That application was dismissed as per Ext.A3, order dated 31 -08 -1972. Respondent claimed that after Kunjukrishna Pillai, appellant continued in permissive occupation of plaint B schedule building. In the re -survey, plaint A schedule was included in survey Nos.41 -8 and 4 -4 in the name of respondent. But in the Thundapper Register( Ext.A5 is its extract), survey No.41/8 was shown in the name of appellant. Respondent preferred complaint to the Director of Survey who passed Ext.A4, order dated 06 -02 -2004 including the name of respondent as owner of property in re -survey No.41/8. Respondent issued notice to the appellant on 02 -08 -2005 to vacate the premises. He did not comply and hence, the suit.

(2.) APPELLANT contended that 10 cents in re -survey No.41/8 and building thereon (A and B schedules) is in the possession of appellant and his predecessor in interest since the last 50 years. On the death of his father, appellant, his mother and sister acquired right over it. Appellant claims to have acquired the right of his mother and sister as per document No.1594 of 1994. He also contended that Ext.A3, order was not passed on merit by the Land Tribunal.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for appellant that Ext.A2 refers to property comprised in survey No.721/2 while the suit property is comprised in re -survey No.41/8. It is contended by the learned counsel that notwithstanding that appellant has denied title of the respondent, relevant documents are not produced. It is further contended that at any rate, appellant and predecessor -in -interest having been in possession of the suit property since the last 50 years, they have perfected title by adverse possession.