RAGHAVAN HARIDAS Vs. KOCHU PILLAI KRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants. Their suit which was for declaration of title and possession and for other reliefs was decreed ia their favour by the Trial Court but was dismissed on appeal.

(2.) The eleven plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 8 were members of an Ezhava tarwad. In 1073 the Kavalayur Devaswom which is now being managed by the first defendant, the Travancore Devaswom Board (hereinafter palled the Board) leased the suit property, 50 cents in extent, to Mathevan Sankaran, the then karnavan of the tarwad. By the partition deed Ext. P1 of 1945 the second defendant, the then karnavan separated with his share in the suit property, scheduled A in the plaint. There was another partition Ext. P2 in 1949, under which the B schedule (in the plaint) was allotted to the branch of plaintiffs 10 and 11 and defendants 7 and 8, C schedule was allotted to plaintiffs 1 to 6 and defendant 3 and D schedule was allotted to plaintiffs 7 to 9 and defendants 4 to 6. The partition deeds provided that the allottees would pay the rent due to the Devaswom. In 1952 the Board which had taken over the Devaswom instituted O. S.78 for recovery of the property with arrears of rent and damages for waste. Ext. D4 is the plaint in that suit. Defendants 2, 8, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were defendants 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 2 respectively in O. S.78. Defendants 4 and 5 here who were minors were represented by their father Veloo (who was defendant 8 therein). Defendants 2,7,8 and 3 herein filed a written statement Ext. D10 contesting the suit claiming discharge of arrears of rent, and compensation for improvements. No evidence was given in support of these contentions and on 16-1-1954 the court decreed the suit allowing recovery of the property, arrears of rent and damages for waste and directing that the latter items could be set off against the value of improvements which was granted on the admission of the Board. Ext. D3 is the judgment and Ext. P4 is the decree in that case. The Board executed the decree and on 30 6 1956 took delivery of the land, Ext. D5 being the delivery list and Ext. D6 being the Amin's report. There was obstruction to delivery of the building and pursuant to a further application the Board obtained possession of the building on 26-10-1956 under the delivery list Ext. D7. Ext. D8 is the relative report of the Amin. The property was immediately after, leased to defendant 2 and in 1961 under an auction a further lease was granted to him under Ext. D9 (same as Ext. D12) dated 17-7-61.

(3.) In 1966 the 11 plaintiffs (of whom plaintiffs 2 to 11 were minors represented by the first plaintiff) brought this suit. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 were minors at the time O.S.78 but had not been made parties thereto and the other plaintiffs were subsequently born children. The plaintiffs sought declaration of their title and possession over items B, C and D in the plaint and a further declaration that the decree and execution proceedings in O.S.78 and the lease deed in favour of the second defendant were void. So far as relevant they alleged that the decree was void as karnavans of each of the branches were not impleaded as such, that proper parties were not impleaded that the second defendant who was entrusted with the conduct of that suit defaulted and colluded with the Board and that the decree was vitiated by fraud and collusion. It was also stated that the delivery proceedings were all fictitious, that there was no dispossession of items B, C and D and that the lease deed was void.