KANIYARAKATH ELIYAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. PUNCHAL MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal at the instance of the defendants in a suit where divergent findings were made by the trial court and first appellate court. Suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction. Later it was amended as one for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for injunction.

(2.) Plaint averments, in brief, are as follows: 1st defendant is the eldest sister of plaintiff. 2nd defendant is her husband. They, along with their children, are residing in a house situated in the plaint schedule property. Plaint schedule property originally belonged to Punchal Joseph, father of the plaintiff and 1st defendant. Joseph had gifted the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff as per Ext.A1 registered gift deed dated 17.08.1989. Plaintiff accepted the gift and took possession of the property. After acquisition of the property, he constructed a small building (shed) in the plaint schedule property with an intention to keep manure and agricultural implements. While so, the 1st defendant sought permission from the plaintiff to occupy the shed for her residential purpose, which was acceded to by the plaintiff. Hence, the defendants occupied the shed for their residence. Plaintiff cultivated coconut trees, pepper vines, rubber trees, etc. in the property. It was informed to the plaintiff one day that the defendants had cut and removed valuable trees from the plaint schedule property. Thereafter they started asserting right on the property. Hence the suit. In the suit, amendments were made incorporating reliefs for declaration and recovery of possession.

(3.) The defendants filed a joint written statement, opposing the plaint claim. According to them, they are the true owners of the property. They disputed identity of the property. It is contended that Joseph, father of the plaintiff and 1st defendant, had executed Ext.B1 agreement on 24.07.1987 in favour of the 1st defendant, agreeing to transfer 1.5 acres of land in her favour. According to them, Ext.A1 gift deed takes in that property as well. Plaintiff has not derived any title in respect of the property covered by Ext.B1. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.