SIVARAJAN Vs. PRABHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defeated defendants in a suit for recovery of possession are the appellants.

(2.) The suit property measuring 30 cents belonged to one Chathunni Panicker. According to the plaintiff, on the death of Chathunni Panicker, the suit property devolved on his wife Neetti and the plaintiff obtained the same from Neetti in the year 1997 as per Ext.A1 sale deed. It is alleged by the plaintiff that defendants 1 and 2 trespassed into the suit property on 30.11.2002. Chathunni Panicker had two brothers and one sister. Defendants 1 and 2 are the children of the brothers of Chathunni Panicker. They resisted the suit contending that Chathunni Panicker died unmarried and consequently on his death the suit property devolved on his brothers and sister. According to them, on the death of the brothers of Chathunni Panicker, the first defendant and the sister of Chathunni Panicker namely Ammini had released their rights over 10 cents out of the suit property in favour of the second defendant and the second defendant and Ammini had released their rights over the remaining 20 cents in favour of the first defendant. Thus, according to the defendants, the first defendant has become the absolute owner of 20 cents out of the suit property and the second defendant has become the absolute owner of the remaining 10 cents.

(3.) The trial court found that Neetti was the wife of Chathunni Panicker and consequently decreed the suit, holding that the suit property devolved on Neetti on the death of Chathunni Panicker and being the assignee of the suit property from Neetti, the plaintiff has title to the same. Defendants 1 and 2 challenged the decision of the trial court in appeal. In the appeal, the defendants have also contended that the assignor of the plaintiff, namely, Neetti belongs to the Scheduled Tribe "Mala Panicker" and therefore, the alienation of the suit property by Neetti in favour of the plaintiff is hit by Section 5 of the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975. The appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court, rejecting the contentions raised by the defendants including the contention referred to above. Defendants 1 and 2 who are aggrieved by the decisions against them have thus come up in this second appeal.