ARU Vs. NAKUNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One acre 80 cents of land along with seed bed (s]mä) and a tank for irrigation (Gdn) belonged to Vadavattath tarwad and held by plaintiff's husband on lease. Plaintiff applied before the Land Tribunal to purchase the landlord's right over these items. Ext. A2 is the purchase order and Ext. A1 is the purchase certificate. They were only for the 1 acre 80 cents and not for the seed bed or tank. Plaintiffs case is they were only omissions in the order and certificate. Suo motu proceeding is now pending for assignment of those items.

(2.) In the property there were originally 40 palmyrah palm trees out of which 20 were admittedly either destroyed or cut and the balance trees were only 20. Defendant is a tapper and he was tapping the palm trees under permission from the owner. On the strength of Exts. A1 and A2 plaintiff filed the suit for injunction restraining defendant from tapping the palms and interfering with her possession. The suit was resisted by the defendant who claimed that the arrangement in his favour is a lease which will not terminate with the assignment in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) Trial Court found the assignment in favour of the defendant to be a licence. It was also found that plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for. Since the seed bed and tank were not included in Exts. A1 and A2 the relief of injunction was not granted in relation to those items. So also it was found that the 1 acre 80 cents covered by Exts. A1 and A2 contain only 8 palmyrah palm trees. Injunction was granted only against tapping those palms and entering the property. Suit was dismissed in other respects. Both parties went in appeal but both the appeals were dismissed. Defendant came up in second appeal and plaintiff filed cross appeal against the disallowed portion of her claim.