APPU Vs. RAMUNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in O.S.No.27/83 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode are the appellants. The respondent filed the above suit for recovery of the plaint B schedule property with arrears of rent. The plaintiff contended that the suit property originally belonged to his father as per a kanom deed of 1959. There was a shed in this property used for storing manure. One Ayyappan was the watchman of this property and he used to occupy this shed. The plaintiffs case is that when the watchman was out of station the defendants unlawfully trespassed into this B schedule shed on 27-12-82 and reduced the same to their possession. The plaintiff filed criminal complaint and later filed the present suit for recovery of possession of B schedule shed with arrears of rent.

(2.) The defendants who are husband and wife filed a joint written statement. They alleged that the plaintiffs watchman was not residing in the plaint schedule shed. Plaintiff agreed to assign 10 cents of property for a consideration of Rs.2000/-. On 15-10-76 the plaintiff accepted this entire consideration and promised to execute an assignment deed within a period of six months. Plaintiff handed over possession of this property and the defendants constructed a shed therein and are residing therein. The trespass alleged on 27-12-82 was denied. The defendants had also raised a contention that they are kudikidappukars in respect of the plaint schedule property. Issue No.7 was raised on this contention and the matter was referred to the Kunnamangalam Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal by its finding dated 31-7-84 found that the defendants were kudikidappukars in the plaint schedule shed. Based on the decision of the Land Tribunal the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

(3.) Aggrieved by that finding the plaintiff filed AS.No.47/85 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode and the learned Sub Judge reversed the finding of the Land Tribunal and held that the defendants were not kudikidappukars in plaint B schedule shed and the dismissal of the suit was not correct. However, the matter was remanded to the court below to consider whether the oral agreement set up by the defendants was correct or not. This is challenged in this appeal.