GANAPATHY ACHARYA Vs. BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was one for. consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the plaint A schedule property.

(2.) The property, which is a garden land with an extent of about eighty cents, and a building therein, in which the plaintiffs are residing, admittedly belonged to one Sivaramayya, the father of defendants 1 to 3. The property including the building was in the possession of the plaintiffs under a Chalgeni lease. The lease was terminated and a suit O.S.No.52 of-1955 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod, was filed by Siva ramayya for recovery of possession of the property. The suit was decreed as prayed for on 9-6-1955, copies of the decree and the judgment being Exts.A4 and A5. It is in relation to what happened subsequently that the dispute between the parties lies.

(3.) The plaintiffs claim that there was a fresh lease of the entire property including the garden land and the building on 5-6-1957, which was actually a renewal of the earlier chalgeni lease, and that they continued in possession thereunder. On the other hand, the case of the fourth defendants who is an assignee of the rights of Sivaramayya from defendants 1 to 3 is that when steps to execute the decree in O.S.No.52 of 1955 were taken, the parties settled the matter between them, by which the building was leased to _ the plaintiffs and they are in possession thereof under the new arrangement. The garden land was surrendered and was in the possession of defendants 1 to 3, and the 4th defendant, after the assignment in his favour. Defendants 1 to 3 filed R.C.P.No.61 of 1974 in the Rent Control Court, Kasaragod under S.11(2) and (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 (the Rent Control Act) for a direction to the plaintiffs to put them in possession of the building. The plaintiffs contend in the first instance that they were in possession, not merely of the building, but also of the adjacent land under the chalgeni lease of 1957. The question was referred to the Land Tribunal for decision under S.125(3) of the Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the KLR Act) and the plaintiffs' case was found against. After this finding was returned, the plaintiffs' raised a further plea that they were kudikidappukars in respect of the building, and therefore entitled to purchase the same under S.80B of the said Act. That question was also found against the plaintiffs on reference under S.125(3). The Rent Control Court thereafter ordered eviction under S.11(2) on the ground of wilful default in payment of the rent, a copy of the order being Ext.B4 dated 28-11-1981. This order was affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority by the order Ext.B5 dated 25-2-1983 and by the revisional court by the order Ext.B6 dated 21-7-1987. The defendants claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation was not accepted by the Rent Control Court and this decision was not challenged by them in farther appeal or revision. The plaintiffs thereupon deposited the arrears of rent due and got the order of eviction vacated under S.11(2)(c) of the Rent Control Act. A copy of this order is Ext.B7. The effect of these proceedings is that the Land Tribunal had found against the plaintiffs regarding the chalgeni lease of the entire property and the kudikidappu rights set up by them.