PUTHANPURAYIL PULLOTICHI MARIYAM Vs. VALIA PEEDIKAVIL THARAMBALLI MOOSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant is the appellant. The suit is for recovery of possession of an item of property on the strength of the plaintiffs' title. The plaintiffs are the karnavan and the senior ananthiravan of a Mappila Marumakkathayam tavazhi tarwad. The suit is contested by the first defendant. She admits the plaintiffs' title to the suit property. Her only defence is that she had an oral lease of the property from a previous karnavan, Sooppy, and the oral lease was renewed as per Ext. A1 dated 10-7-1964 and she is in possession of the property as a tenant under the plaintiffs' tavazhi. Both the courts below have concurrently found against the oral lease alleged. Ext. A1 purports to be a renewal of the prior oral lease. It is granted by Anthraman. a Karnavan of the plaintiffs' tavazhi. He was none other than the husband of the first defendant. The appellate court also found that Ext. A1 was never intended to be acted upon. On these findings the suit was decreed and the decision of the Trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that even on the finding of the courts below that the oral lease set up has not been proved, the first defendant is entitled to protection under S.6C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, as amended by Act 27 of 1979. S.6C introduced by S.3 of the Amendment Act is extracted below:-