CHACKO Vs. MATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision and the appeal, the decree of the lower court dismissing S. C. S. 127/60 and allowing an application filed under S.11(6) of Kerala Act 31/1958 in A. D. R. P. 8/58 is the subject of attack.

(2.) I will refer in these proceedings to the rank occupied by the parties in the Small Cause Suit because that will be more convenient. The plaintiff is the petitioner in C. R. P. 486/62, as well as appellant in A. S. 480/62. The plaintiff instituted Small Cause Suit 127/60, Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry, against the two defendants, the first defendant being the husband, and the second defendant being the wife of the first defendant for recovery of arrears of rent for the year 1958 stated to be due from both the defendants on the basis of a lease deed executed by them evidenced by Ext. D 5 dated 8-9-1950.

(3.) It is seen that in this suit the first defendant namely the husband has filed a written statement to the effect that there has been an Otti transaction in favour of the plaintiff and that the properties have been taken on lease by him and that it is in his exclusive possession and enjoyment. Those allegations are found in Para.3 thereof. No doubt, he is referring to the application filed by his wife claiming relief under S.11 of Act 31/58 which will be referred to hereinafter as the Act. It is rather interesting to note that both the husband and wife were made parties to this suit. From the case diary, it is seen that summons was served on both the defendants on 27-10-60. The 1st defendant husband alone entered appearance, filed vakalath and asked for time for filing written statement. There is also an entry in the case diary on 27-10-60 to the effect that the second defendant namely the wife of the first defendant, did not appear though summons has been served and she has been declared ex parte on that date. Later on the first defendant has filed a written statement, to the material part of which I have already referred to earlier.