FRANCIS Vs. SARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In S.A.No.887 of 1999, defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 466 of 1992, on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Thrissur, are the appellants. In S.A. No. 205 of 1999, the defendant in O.S.No. 2002 of 1990 before the same court is the appellant. The suits were tried separately and decided by separate judgments. Appeals were also filed separately and decided by separate judgments. Since common questions are involved and the plaintiffs in the two suits are sisters and plaint schedule properties are adjacent buildings, both the second appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. The plaint schedule properties belonged to the plaintiffs mother. The plaint schedule in O.S.No.2002 of 1990 is a shed having a length of 68 feet and a width of 15 feet, with walls and tiled roof. According to the plaintiff, it was given to the defendants father on a licence arrangement for running a workshop. After the death of defendants father, the defendant was allowed to run the workshop. Subsequently, there was a partition in the family of the plaintiff and the plaint schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a notice terminating the licence and required the defendant to vacate the premises. Since the defendant did not vacate, the suit for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation was filed.

(2.) The defendant filed a written statement contending that the arrangement between the parties is one of lease and not licence. The execution of the licence agreement by the defendants father was denied. After the death of the father, there was new entrustment to the defendant and he is running the workshop.

(3.) In O.S.No.466 of 1992, it was contended by the plaintiff that the plaint schedule properly belonged to the plaintiffs mother and subsequently, the plaintiff obtained the rights in the property as per a partition deed. The mother had entered into a licence agreement with defendants 1 and 2 entrusting the plaint schedule property for tyre retreading business. The property was required by the plaintiff for her own use. The plaintiff therefore demanded vacant possession of the building after the defendants removing their machinery and tools installed for tyre retreading. Since the defendants did not comply with the demand, the plaintiff sent a notice terminating the licence arrangement and filed the suit.