MUTHEDATH SREENIVASAN Vs. CHAKKITTAKANDY KALATHIL MEENAKSHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for injunction. The trial court decreed the suit but the appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Hence, this Second Appeal.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the plaint 'A' schedule property of which the 'B' schedule is a part belonged to one Govindan. On the death of Govindan plaintiff acquired title to the plaint 'A' schedule property. The defendants' Predecessor-in- interest obtained an extent of 12 x 9 and 4 x 4 Carpenter's Koles of property from Govindan mentioned earlier. Kanaran who was one of the assignee released his right in favour of Cherootty the Predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. The plaintiff contended that the defendants are not in possession of the property excluding the 'B' schedule building and the land covered by Ext.A2. Alleging trespass into the other portion of the 'A' schedule property, the suit was filed. The defendants contended that they are entitled to 'Karaima right' as provided under Act 16 of 1989 in respect of the land appurtenant to the house situated in the plaint 'B' schedule property. The plaintiff contend that though as per Ext.A2, the defendants' predecessor had obtained only mortgage right which was renewed as per Ext.A3, as per the provisions of the Land Reforms Act the grantee has become a deemed tenant. In respect of the 'B' schedule property the defendants obtained purchase certificate. Since the defendants had already obtained purchase certificate setting up a claim of tenancy based on Exts.A2 and A3 they cannot turn round and contend that they are also entitled to Karaima right as per Act 16 of 1989. This contention raised by the plaintiff was accepted by the trial court. It was further found that the defendants are entitled to 'B' schedule property and also to use the latrine and well and to have access to the well and latrine mentioned earlier. That reservation was also given as per the decree granted by the court below. It was found that defendants were not in possession of the 'A' schedule property excluding the 'B' schedule property except the right of access to the latrine and well stated above. In that line a decree for injunction was granted by the trial court.

(3.) THE following substantial questions of law have been re-framed :-