KARUNAGAPPALLY COIR VYVASAYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD Vs. SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI RAMACHANDRAN NAMBOODIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the 1st defendant in O.S.No. 377/1985 of the Munsiffs Court, Karunagappally. The suit was for a mandatory injunction to handover the plaint schedule property after demolishing the building therein after finding that the 1st defendant has only licence over the plaint schedule property for recovery of arrears of rent and notice charges of Rs.135.00 and future ground rent at the rate of Rs.400.00 per annum. The plaint schedule property is 6 cents of land in Sy. 458/A.B of Kulasekharapuram village and the building situated therein.

(2.) The plaintiffs are two brothers who derived the plaint schedule property from their mother, Lakshmi Antharjanam. The main averments in the plaint are to the effect that the dilapidated building in the plaint schedule property was sold to one Adv. Sivarama Panicker as per Ext.A1 Sale Deed dt. 10/8/1955 agreeing that the said Sivarama Panicker is free to either repair and continue to use the building or to reconstruct the same, and in case he continues to use the building after repairing, the plaint schedule property is given on ground rent for a period of three years @ Rs.55.00 per annum to Lakshmi Antharjanam. Sivarama Panicker repaired the dilapidated building to its present condition. Sivarama Panicker sold his rights to the 1st defendant as per Ext.B1 document dt 26/3/1962. The defendants 2 to 6 are the tenants of the 1st defendant. Since the plaint schedule property was given to Sivarama Panicker, who was an Advocate, it is not for an industrial purpose, and hence, the 1st defendant, as his assignee, is not entitled to get any benefits under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. As per Ext.A1 Adv. Sivarama Panicker was given only a licence over the plaint schedule property for a period of three years.

(3.) The defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 filed separate Written Statements opposing the suit prayers. The principal contention raised by the defendants was that the arrangement, as per Ext.A1, is a lease. Sivarama Panicker completed the construction of the building in the plaint schedule property, and he had been running a textile shop and other business establishments in the building. The 1st defendant is entitled to get fixity of tenure under S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.