EBRAHIM RAWTHER Vs. BATCHA RAWTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant sued to recover possession of the suit properties, which are two buildings, with arrears of rent and future rent. They belonged to Kannan Devan Hill Produce Company in Munnar and were taken on lease by Bacha Rowther, the appellant's father. He allowed his son inlaw, the respondent, to be in occupation, by carrying on a trade in item 1 and residing in item 2. This was in the year 1935. After the death of Bacha Rowther, the appellant took a lease from the company in the year 1944 in his name and allowed the respondent to continue in occupation, on payment of the rent to the company and on agreeing to surrender possession to the appellant whenever demanded. In June 1953, the appellant called upon the respondent to surrender the buildings and disputes which arose were settled by mediation, as a result of which, the respondent agreed to pay Rs. 50/- more per mensem by way of rent to the appellant and to vacate after two years. He did not surrender possession even on the expiry of the term and even attempted to induct someone into possession of the buildings. On these averments, the appellant sued for the reliefs aforesaid, and for an injunction to restrain the respondent from inducting anyone else into possession of the buildings.

(2.) The respondent contended, that Bacha Rowther gave the buildings to his deceased wife absolutely on stridhanam and denied being in permissive possession as alleged. He pleaded in the alternative, that after Bacha Rowther's death, his wife and Bacha Rowther's other legal representatives gave the appellant a power of attorney for management of the estate, by virtue of which, the appellant took the lease of the year 1944 in his name, the right under which enured to the respondent's wife and others and that after the death of his wife, the respondent is in possession as a fractional owner.

(3.) These contentions were negatived by the court of first instance which decreed the appellant's claim in full. On appeal being taken by the respondent, the District Judge allowed the appeal on the preliminary ground, without considering the other questions arising in the case, that the lease of 1953 June relied on by the appellant being for a term of two years and not being registered under S.107 of the Transfer of Property Act which had already come into force in the concerned area, the appellant was not entitled to maintain the suit, which accordingly was dismissed.