M/S. TATA TEA LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, MUNNAR, KDH VILLAGE, DEVICOLAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT Vs. SMT. VALARMATHI TEA SHOP NO. IX/3071 NEAR PRIYA THEATRE, NULLATANNI ROAD, MUNNAR 685 612, KDH VILLAGE, DEVICOLAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam in O.S.No.140/1995 followed by those of the Additional District Court, Thodupuzha in A.S.No.195/2004, the plaintiff in O.S.No.140/1995, has come up with this second appeal. The suit is one for declaration of the right and title of the plaintiff over the plaint scheduled property and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant. A consequential relief of perpetual injunction has also been sought for.

(2.) Originally, the extent of plaint schedule property was shown as 25 cents and subsequently, the same was altered as 8.154 cents of property, through an amendment. The plaintiff is Tata Tea Ltd., Munnar, who claims to have acquired all the properties in Survey No.67/1 (old), which is presently Survey No.67/1-1 of the KDH Village. According to the plaintiff, one late A.R. Kuttan Pillai was permitted to place a bunk shop at a portion of the property of the plaintiff at the road side, through Ext.A6 unregistered lease agreement dated 01.07.1971. The said Kuttan Pillai later died. It is alleged that the defendant 'stepped into his shoes and got possession of the said petty shop' and has been conducting a tea shop therein from the year 1990 onwards.

(3.) Regarding their title over the properties, the plaint claim is that the plaintiff had purchased the right of Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited, Munnar, through Ext.A1 sale deed. It has also been averred that consequent to the coming into force of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act 17 of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Resumption Act'), all the lands in the possession of Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company were taken by government and subsequently, restored the same to the company. The pleadings, in fact, show that the defendant is a rank trespasser and, therefore, she is liable to be evicted, and the property has to be recovered.