ORKATKANDIYIL SHUHAIB Vs. MANIYOTH MOIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd defendant in a suit for recovery of possession is the appellant. The plaintiff contended that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The property shown in B schedule was admittedly leased out by the defendant as per rent deed dated 03.07.2005. According to the plaintiff, the defendant trespassed into a portion of A schedule property which is not covered by the rent deed. That portion of the property is shown in the C Schedule to the plaint. It is alleged that the defendant, after trespassing into the C schedule property, constructed a shop touching the northern side of the B schedule property which was the property leased out by the defendant.

(2.) THE defendant on the other hand contended that the C schedule property also forms part of the leasehold. An oral lease in respect of the C schedule property was also set up by the defendant/appellant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the 2nd defendant/appellant has vehemently argued that the area alleged to have been encroached upon should be treated as part of the leasehold property and so if only the lease is terminated the landlord can get possession of the said area. It is argued that C schedule property should be treated as accession. In the plan prepared by the Advocate Commissioner, the property covered by the rent deed is shown in yellow colour. Just to the north of the leased premises the area encroached upon is demarcated in brown lines; that is the C schedule property.