KUNJAPPU Vs. RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF claims to have obtained possession of the property in 1976 as per Ext. Al from Janakikutty Amma who obtained it in execution proceedings in EP No. 98 of 1975 in OS. No. 530 of 1962 of the Munsiff Court , palghat First defendant claims possession of the property as a tenant. He contended that he obtained leasehold rights in the property as per Ext. B1 from asmikoya Thangal and that since then he is in possession of the property.

(2.) IT is in evidence that in OS. No. 530 of 1962 Asmikoya thangal's contentions were negatived. His appeal was also dismissed Ext. A4 is the judgment in SA. No 1256 of 1968. Plaintiff's assignor Janakikutty Amma tiled E. P. No. 98 of 1975 and took delivery of the property This is evidenced by Ext. A9. In that execution petition the present first defendant filed an execution application claiming tenancy right under Asmikoya Thangal as per Ext. Bl. The claim petition was dismissed and his appeal in the District Court was also dismissed.

(3.) FIRST defendant filed A. S. No. 200 of 1977 against O. S. No. 67 of 1975. That appeal was dismissed. As already pointed out, in the execution proceedings in O. S. No. 530 of 19621st defendant's claim petition was dismissed and the appeal that followed met the same fate. Janakikutty Amma obtained possession of the property as per Ext. A2 delivery warrant in E. P. No. 98 of 1975 in O. S. No. 530 of 1962. In Ext. A5 judgment it has been clearly held that the present 1st defendant purchased the alleged verumpattom right of Asmikoya Thangal during the pendency of O. S. No. 530 of 1962 with the knowledge of the pending proceedings and that the assignment in his favour is bit by lis pendens. In view of Ext. A5 decision the defendants are debarred from raising the very same contentions again. In para 16 of the said judgment it has been held that the present 1st defendant is not in possession of the property as he was ousted therefrom in execution proceedings in O. S. No. 530 of 1962. There is no evidence at all to show that the 1st defendant or the other defendants got possession of the property after Janakikutty Amma had obtained it as per delivery warrant is E. P. No. 98 of 1975 in O. S. No. 530 of 1962. Defendants have no case that they obtained possession over the property at any time after Ext. A2. Exts. B2, B3 and B5 are prior to Ext. A2 and Ext. B4 is after the suit. Contention of the defendants that there is no evidence of possession of the plaintiff on the date of suit is not tenable in view of the overwhelming evidence that Janakikutty Amma had obtained delivery of the property as per Ext. A2 and that thereafter plaintiff obtained registered kanom assignment deed from her as per Ext. Al on 20-1-1976.