SUBHADRA AMMA Vs. GIRI MALLAN KRISHNA MALLAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the defendant in the suit being one for eviction from that portion of the plaintiffs property alleged to have been trespassed upon. The plaintiff contended that the defendant who had taken a portion of plaint schedule item 1 as per a coolicharth executed on 15.9.1121 had trespassed upon an adjacent portion and put up a cow shed. So he claimed eviction from the trespassed portion and allied reliefs. The defendant contended that she had taken as per an oral lease 13 cents of property from the plaintiffs predecessor in interest and not any plot as per a coolicharth as alleged by the plaintiff and hence denied any trespass. Both the lower courts have found that the claim regarding a lease is not true and that the defendants right was only as per a coolicharth filed as Ext. B. Holding under such circumstances that she was not entitled to erect a cow shed in a site outside what is covered by Ext. B the plaintiff was granted a decree.

(2.) On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the cow shed was erected long before Ext. A, the assignment in favour of the plaintiff, that it was necessary for the proper enjoyment of the homestead and that sufficient opportunity was not given to adduce evidence to prove the existence of the shed at the time of Ext. A. In view of the concurrent findings regarding genuineness of Ext. B the only question that has to be considered here is as to what rights followed from it. Ext. B creates only the right of a kudikidappukaran as defined in S.2(a) of the Cochin Verumpattomdars Act, VIII of 1118 in the defendant. The said definition is as follows:-

(3.) In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.