ITHACHUTTY Vs. ASIA UMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the decree for recovery of possession on the strength of title, the defendants 5, 10 and 14 are in appeal.

(2.) The plaint 'A' schedule property is a portion of the plaint 'B' schedule. Plaint 'A' schedule is item No.3 (Tak 3) in the 'B' schedule. The plaint 'B' schedule is a portion of plaint 'C' schedule. Recovery of possession is sought in respect of plaint 'A' schedule property.

(3.) The sole plaintiff died and the legal heirs are the supplemental plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the 'C' schedule property belonged in Jenmom to one "Kozhikkotte Kizhakkekovilakam". One Payi Amma got assignment of the property from the Jenmi under Kanam Deed No.1024 of 1889. Subsequently the said Payi Amma and others conveyed the property under Ext.A1 Sale Deed No.1094 dtd. 26/10/1889 to one Veerankutty, the maternal grand father of the original plaintiff. On the death of Veerankutty, the plaintiff's mother Kunhathunni Umma enjoyed the plaint 'B' schedule property as a legal heir. While so, she took the plaint 'B' schedule property on direct lease from the Jenmi as per Lease Deed No.209 of 1087. Subsequently the lease was renewed as per Ext.A7 document No.1637 dtd. 25/8/1928. The plaint 'B' schedule property is included as item No.5 in Ext.A7. The plaint 'A' schedule property is claimed to be the property described in Tak 3 in the said item 5 in Ext.A7 and situated as the western most among the three Taks. On the death of the mother-Kunhathunni Umma, the rights over the property vested with the plaintiff as the sole legal heir. Thus the plaintiff claimed title over the property.