M. VIJAYALEKSHMI Vs. V. G. ARAVINDAKSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are the defendants in O.S.No.310/2004 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam which was one filed for recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation. The suit was decreed and the first appeal, A.S.No.7/2012 filed against the judgment and decree is also dismissed by the Additional District Court-II, Mavelikkara confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Against which, the appellants/defendants came up in second appeal.

(2.) Plaint schedule property is 10 cents of property originally belonged to late Krishnapillai Narayana Pillai. The father of respondent/plaintiff, Raman Pillai obtained the plaint schedule property by virtue of Will No.12 of 1103 M.E. (Parties would hereinafter be referred as per their status before the trial court). Plaintiff was allotted, item No.2 as per Ext.A1 Partition Deed. Life interest of parents with respect to that property was reserved in the partition deed. Father Raman Pillai and mother Kamalamma expired on 9/11/1992 and 1/3/2004 respectively. Now plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. While the father of the plaintiff was holding the property, he executed Ext.A2 agreement in the year 1975 in favour of Mohan Kumar, the husband of first defendant. Earlier father had given 17 cents of property on lease in favour of Balagangadharan Channar, who was conducting, 'Indira Motors' on ground rent in that property. Later, Balagangadhara Channar transferred his right in favour of Mohan Kumar for running an educational institution in the name and style, 'Mohan's Technical Institute'. The plaint schedule property was given on rent when Mohan Kumar required more property for running the institution on its northern side and he extended portions of the shed into plaint schedule property.

(3.) Defendants are the legal heirs of Mohan Kumar. Since Raman Pillai had only life interest, the agreement executed by him for ground rent is not legally binding on the plaintiff. After the death of the parents, plaintiff demanded the defendants to surrender the property and a lawyer notice was issued on 1/4/2004. But the property was not surrendered. Hence, the suit.