CHIVEETTIL SEKHARAN NAMBIAR Vs. CHERUVAZHCHERI KISHAKKEKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 13, 15, 16, 42, 44 to 51, 54 and 55 are the appellants. The suit was for partition of the plaint B schedule property.

(2.) Briefly stated the plaintiff's case is as follows: The property belonged in Jenm to the grandmother of the plaintiff Chinna Appissi and her sister Kunchi Appissi and brother Kunhunni Nambiar and they were in possession of the plaint schedule property. On the death of Chinna Appissi, the property vested with the plaintiffs and defendants jointly and they are in joint possession and enjoyment. Defendants 13, 42 and 52 sold some timber trees without the consent of the plaintiff and other defendants. So, a petition was filed before the police and the matter was amicably settled. But still, defendants 13, 14 and 52 were making attempts to cut and sell trees. In the circumstances, plaintiffs sought a partition, but it was not heeded to by contending defendants. It is in these circumstances, the plaintiff sought for partition and separate possession of 1/56 share out of the plaint schedule B property.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 11 and 17 to 31 filed written statements admitting the plaint claim. 13th defendant filed written statement repudiating the contention of the plaintiff. Defendants 15, 16, 42, 43, 44 and 55 also filed a written statement taking similar contention as that of the 13th defendant. The contesting defendants averred that the plaint B schedule property belonged in Jenm to Koodallur Mana and under the Mana, Cherupara Madhathil Sankunni Nair and Raman Nair were holding the property. The 13th defendant obtained the lease hold right from Sankunni Nair and Raman Nair about 35 years back. In 1970, there was a partition in the thavazhi of the 13th defendant and the plaint schedule property was set apart to the shares of 15th and 16th defendants and they are in possession of the property. They also denied that the 1st defendant was the Karanavan of the tarwad consisting of plaintiffs and defendants and contended that even if the plaintiff had any right, that was lost by adverse possession and limitation.