CHERIAN Vs. KOCHUVAREED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property and for consequential injunction to restrain the defendant from executing the decree in O. S. No. 133 of 1120 on the file of the Munsiff of Irinjalakuda. The facts of the case are as follows:--

(2.) The plaintiff has got a case that following the notice issued to him by the defendant claiming arrears of rent, the defendant approached the plaintiff and represented to him that if the plaintiff and Kunjuvareed would concede an oral lease from the defendant, he could make up the lack of possession by him under the sale sannad, and that therefore the plaintiff need not issue a reply to his notice. He was also told that Kunjuvareed was also being prevailed upon to send consent reply and that in such event the defendant after completing his title would sell the property in favour of the plaintiff It is alleged, believing the defendant, the plaintiff did not send a reply to notice and Kunjuvareed sent a reply as wanted by the defendant

(3.) The suit -- O. S. No. 133 of 1120 was dismissed by the Trial Court holding not only that the lease set up by the defendant was not true but also that the basis of his title the revenue sale was a void one conferring no valid title on the defendant. This decision was confirmed by the appellate court, the Anjikaimal District Court. But on Second Appeal, the Travancore - Cochin High Court set aside the decision of the lower court and decreed the suit for arrears of rent upholding the lease on which the present defendant had laid claim in his suit.