SEBASTIAN Vs. THRESSIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three appeals arise from the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 151/77 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court , Cochin . THE judgment is common to this suit and two other suits. THE suit was dismissed but without costs. Defendants 10 to 16 have preferred A. S. No. 338/82 and defendants 2 to 9 have preferred A. S. No. 176/83 against certain adverse findings. THE plaintiffs have filed an appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit. In plaintiffs' appeal the registry has raised an objection to the effect that the appeal has to be preferred before the District Court, Ernakulam and not before this Court. This question would naturally arise in the two other appeals also. THErefore the sole question for decision is which is the forum of appeal?

(2.) O. S. No. 151/77 was filed seeking "a declaration that the plaintiffs are the sole owners of the plaint schedule property and in possession of the same" and praying for "a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and interfering with plaintiffs' possession, right, title or interest". According to the plaintiffs, the property, belonged to their father Vareed and on the death of Vareed, devolved on them exclusively. Defendants 2 to 9 contended that the property was the acquisition of Pethru, father of Vareed and on the death of Pethru, all his children inherited the property. Defendants 2 to 9 are the descendants of a son of Pethru. Defendants 10 to 16 are the descendants of a daughter of Pethru. They contended that the property came to vest in their mother as "sthreedhanam" obtained from her father Pethru. The trial court found that the property belonged to Vareed and now belong exclusively to the plaintiffs and rejected the contention that the property originally belonged to Pethru or was the "sthreedhanam" property of the mother of defendants 10 to 16. The contention that the plaintiffs' title, if any, was barred by limitation was over-ruled. The lower court found that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the property on the date of the suit. However the suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs should have claimed consequential relief of possession but did not do so.

(3.) UNDER S. 25 (b), in a suit of this nature, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on Rs. 300/-whichever is higher. In this case the market value of the property has been computed at Rs. 12,000/ -. Therefore fee has to be computed on Rs. 6,000/ -.