RATHINAM M P Vs. KDHP CO PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in O.S.No.239 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Devikulam suffered a decree for eviction from the building referred to in the plaint schedule. Learned II Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha refused to interfere with that judgment and decree in A.S.No.86 of 20112. Hence the Second Appeal.

(2.) RESPONDENT which is a private limited company, claimed that the building referred to in the plaint schedule belongs to it as per sale deed No.1281 of 2005 (which ofcourse is in respect of a larger extent of estate land). Appellant was working as a driver of Sevenmallay Division of Lekshmi Estate of the respondent. As employee of the respondent, the building was allotted to the appellant for his residence with family. The condition of allotment is that appellant has to vacate the building on his retirement. He retired on 31.12.2006. Since appellant did not collect his retirement benefits, respondent has deposited it with the Controlling Authority on 12.03.2007. Respondent wanted the appellant to vacate the building and filed the suit.

(3.) SO far as proof of title is concerned, claim of respondent in this case is regarding the building in the plaint schedule. True, it is stated in the plaint that respondent is the owner of the building as per sale deed No.1281 of 2005 but, that document is not produced. But, I must remember that sale deed No.1281 of 2005 is not with respect to the building alone. It is with respect to a larger extent of estate land. It is not as if when the respondent claimed right over the building in question and sought recovery of possession of that building, respondent was required to produce the title deed and if there was again a denial of title, to go for measurement of the entire property to prove its title over the building. Ext.A2 is the extract of building tax assessment register for the period 1997-2002 concerning building No.457 referred to in the plaint schedule. There, respondent is shown as the owner of the building. No contra evidence is let in by the appellant. He has no case that the building belongs to him. His claim is only that the building was allotted to him by M/s.Tata Tea Ltd. and it is not shown that the said company is the predecessor-in-interest of respondent. Ext.A2 shows that the building belongs to the respondent.