LAWS(KER)-1962-6-37

MANICKAM AMMA Vs. AMBU PODUVAL

Decided On June 04, 1962
Manickam Amma Appellant
V/S
Ambu Poduval Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendants 2 to 6. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant, who is no more, and the daughter of one Rama Poduval, also deceased. Rama Poduval was admittedly the Karnavan of a tarwad. He took a lease deed for about 6 acres of land in 1094 by Ext. B1. The controversy in this case is only about a building that has been erected in a part of the property covered by that lease deed. It was claimed by the plaintiff, a member of the tarwad of the said Rama Poduval, that the building was erected by the plaintiff and that the second defendant and her brothers and sisters were allowed to stay in that building. The appellants, including the widow of Rama Podual, contended that it was Rama Poduval who erected the building for their benefit and they, his wife and children, were staying there. They went further and said that the plaintiff's tarwad had no right whatever to the property which is taken on lease under Ext. B1, that it was and it remained the exclusive separate property of Rama Poduval and on his death in 1113 devolved on his wife and children. They prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

(2.) The Trial Court found that the plaintiff was entitled only to a third of the suit property which is the building on the leasehold property and directed the plaintiff to take appropriate steps, if so advised, for partition. During the course of the Judgment, it also considered the rights of the parties to the leasehold property and came to the conclusion that the property did not belong to the tarwad. The lower appellate court has taken a different view and has held that the leasehold property as well as the building belonged to the tarwad of the plaintiff and allowed recovery of possession sought for.

(3.) In this appeal, it is contended that in the absence of proof of a nucleus of tarwad funds at the time of the acquisition of Ext. B1, it must be presumed that the property belonged exclusively to Rama Poduval in whose name Ext. B1 lease deed has been executed, notwithstanding the fact that he was the Karnavan of the tarwad at that time. The property covered by the lease deed being the self acquired property, it is further contended that there is no material in this case to come to the conclusion that he relinquished his separate interest in the property and gave it to the tarwad. As the property itself belonged to Rama Poduval, it is said that the building necessarily belonged exclusively to him and therefore the suit should have been dismissed.