BHANUMATHI Vs. K G RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACED with the concurrent findings and decisions against the defendants, the defendants in O.S.No.402/2010 have come up in appeal. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court.

(2.) THE plaint schedule property admittedly belonged to one Lakshmikutty Amma who died intestate on 23.11.1979. The building situated in the property also belonged to her. On the death of Lakshmikutty Amma, the property devolved upon her legal heirs namely, the plaintiffs and others. According to the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant, who is the mother of 2nd and 3rd defendants, was brought to the house of Lakshmikutty Amma to look after Lakshmikutty Amma. The defendants were occupying the premises on permissive basis. They have no right over the property. The plaintiffs are now in need of the plaint schedule property and in spite of the demand made by the plaintiffs to vacate the premises, the defendants did not do so. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have no right to continue the occupation of the premises and therefore, suit was laid for mandatory injunction.

(3.) THE defendants resisted the suit. They pointed out that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties in the sense that all the legal heirs of Lakshmikutty Amma were not on the party array. Further, it is pointed out that they were given licence to reside in the house by Lakshmikutty Amma and under that arrangement, they have effected construction in the property and therefore they are entitled to the benefit of Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act. To the notice issued by the plaintiffs, reply was given by the defendants stating the true facts. Pointing out that they are not liable to vacate the premises, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.