MATHAI KITHO Vs. GODANANDA BRAHMANANDA BOOTHI SWAMIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are appeals brought by different defendants in a suit for recovery of arrears of michavarom and renewal fees. There were several items of properties in the plaint schedule; and although all of them were originally demised on kanapattom by the same deed they were, at the time of the institution of the suit, in the possession of different persons. The suit was decreed, but the plaintiff was given separate decrees as regards each of the items in the plaint schedule. In each of the appeals filed in this Court the appellant therein complains against the portion of the decree relating to the property he is interested in.

(2.) THE plaintiff is Godananda Brahmananda Bhooti Swamiyar of THEkke Madham, Trichur. THE plaint properties, which are not jenmom properties, and certain other properties which are jenmom properties were outstanding on a kanapattom granted from the plaintiff's matapram and that kanapattom was renewed by Ext. A in 1077. Jenmikaram Settlement proceedings, and the suit which has given rise to these appeals was brought for the arrears of proportionate michavarom and renewal fees and other dues payable in respect of non jenmom properties comprised in the renewal deed. THE kanomdars under the document of 1077 were one Aeliyoni who is now dead, and defendant 1. By the time the suit was filed in 1121 the kanom right in respect of some of the properties had devolved on other persons by virtue of sales in execution of decrees and other alienations. Consequently there were many defendants in the suit and a good number of them entered appearance in the Court below and filed written statements, each putting forward contentions in respect of the property or properties in his possession. Defendants 5, 7, 24 and 32 in the Court below are the appellants before us. Defendant 7 is interested in plaint item 6, and has brought A. S. No. 222 of 1952 against the portion of the decree of the court below relating to that item. Defendant 5 is interested in plaint item 2, and has brought A. S. No. 273 of 1952. Defendants 24 and 32 are interested in item no. 1, which they claim under defendant 1, and have brought A. S. No. 284 of 1952. THE points raised in each of these appeals do not cover all the contentions put forward in the written statements of the appellant or appellants therein, and it is not therefore necessary to refer here to all the contentions of the parties. THEir contentions so far as they are necessary for the disposal of each appeal will be referred to in the discussion below regarding that appeal.

(3.) IT follows from the above that by the Court sale of 1099 the full right of ownership in plaint item 6 passed to ITtyerah ITtoop free of all encumbrances and that thereafter neither the plaintiff nor the kanomdar had any right in the property. Ext. IX is the sale deed executed by ittyerah ITtoop in favour of Chakku Thomman, and Ext. X is the sale certificate obtained by defendant 7 when he purchased plaint item 6 at the revenue sale in 1114 for recovery of Abkari dues payable by Chakku Thomman to the Government. In the circumstances, we hold that defendant 1 was become the absolute owner of plaint item 6 and that the plaintiff's matapram has no right to it and is not entitled to get the arrears of michavarom and other dues sought to be recovered in respect of it. The suit so far as plaint item 6 and defendant 7 are concerned has therefore to be dismissed.