KOLARA SEKHARAN NAIR Vs. JANU AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No.241/1990 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Koyilandy. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Narikkini Edavana illath Sreedevi Antharjanam and the plaintiff's father took the property on lease orally from her and thereafter, he was in possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff's father never got any leasehold right over the the plaint schedule property and the plaint schedule property, along with other properties, was taken on lease by the husband of the 1st defendant from one Krishnan Namboothiri of the same Illom and he has got lease hold right over that property and after his death, the properties in the possession of defendants. Thus, both the plaintiff and the defendants raised claim over the plaint schedule property under the same Illom; but with different entrustment.

(2.) In order to prove the case put forward by the plaintiff, he has produced and marked Exts.A1 to A18 and the defendants produced and marked Exts.B1 to B12. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1. After considering the aforesaid evidence, on record, the trial court decreed the suit, by granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property, on a finding that the plaintiff has title and possession over the plaint schedule property.

(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants preferred A.S.No.4/1997 before the Sub Court, Quilandy. After re-appreciating the evidence, on record, the appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court and allowed the appeal, on a finding that even though the plaintiff has title over the property, he failed to prove possession and the property is not an identifiable one.