O PRASANNAKUMARI AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are concerned with Ext.P17 order under Rule 11(3) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, 1964. The petitioners are sought to be evicted from 10 cents and 279 sq.links of property in Sy.No.1176 of Thirumala Village. The allegation is that the petitioners are in possession of the aforesaid extent which is in fact a 'kulam puramboke'. The litigation has a history which has been placed on record by the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners are siblings who obtained respectively 1 acre and 42 cents from their father. Their father the predecessorin-interest obtained the aforesaid property in a partition suit. The description of the total extent obtained by the predecessor-ininterest is evident from Ext.P1 delivery note of the Executing Court. The property which was apportioned to the share of the father of the petitioners was 1 acre 42 cents comprised in Sy.No.1176/A. In fact the total extent of properties which were partitioned was 6 acres 16 cents comprised in both Sy.No.1176/A & B. The property in sub division B being comprised of only 14 cents. The petitioners' father was not delivered with any property in sub division 'B'. The 1st petitioner was gifted 1 acre out of the said property by Ext.P2 gift deed in the year 1979. The balance 42 cents was bequeathed to the 2nd petitioner as per Ext.P3 Will. The father of the petitioners died in 1999. On Ext.P17 being issued the petitioners have filed the above writ petition.

(3.) Even when the father was alive there was an encroachment threatened by certain persons of the locality against which the father and the 1st petitioner had filed a suit in which a temporary injunction against encroachment was granted as per Ext.P4. The suit also stood decreed as against the private parties impleaded therein as defendants. Subsequently by Ext.P9 a memo was issued by the Tahsildar against the 1st petitioner who was in ownership and possession of 1 acre and the 2nd petitioner who was in possession of 42 cents. Ext.P5 alleged that a kulam puramboke in Sy.No.1176/B was in the possession of the petitioners. The petitioners filed a suit again; this time impleading the Government and the Tahsildar, the plaint in which is produced as Ext.P6. The specific contention taken up in the suit was that there was absolutely no property in the possession of the petitioners comprised in sub division B of Sy.No.1176. It was also contended that the entire extent of property of 1 acre 42 cents comprised in Sy.No.1176/A and held by the petitioners were bounded by a wall. The suit stood decreed as per Ext.P7. Obviously none appeared for the State and the decree was one passed ex-parte. However there is no challenge made to the same and it has acquired finality Subsequent to the suit there were notices issued by Exts.P9 and P10 which according to the petitioners was only to close the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P5. It could not have been otherwise, in the teeth of the decree at Ext.P7.