K C ITOOP AND SONS Vs. ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law that arises for determination in this second appeal is:

(2.) The building in this case belonged to a Namboodiri family and is now in possession of the defendant claiming to be a lessee inducted into possession in 1974 on the strength of an unregistered lease deed for a term of five years and on a monthly rent of Rs. 140/-. The rights of the Namboodiri family have been obtained by the plaintiff by assignment. The validity of that assignment is no longer in challenge. In the court, a counter part of the unregistered lease deed accepted by the Karanavan of the Namboodiri family was produced (Ext. B 3). If the defendant is in fact a lessee as contended by him, the suit is not maintainable for, the remedy has to be found under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. On the other hand, if the lease is void, the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession on the strength of title.

(3.) The Trial Court found that there was no valid lease; that the deed not having been registered offended S.107 of the Transfer of Property Act and S.17 of the Registration Act; that the defendant cannot rely on the equitable doctrine of part performance under S.53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act and he did not obtain any valid right to remain in possession. The suit was therefore, decreed.