CHANDRAN NAIR Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 217/84 of the Munsiff's Court, Alathur. Suit was filed for evicting the defendant from the plaint suhedule building with arrears of rent. According to the plaintiff, the property, which is about 30 cents in extent in R.S. No. 67/B6 of Pazhampalakode Village belonged in jenm to the Kavalappara Estate. Defendant Krishnan had verumpattom right over the property. Verumpattom right with Krishnan's house were assigned to the plaintiff by means of a registered document, Ext. Al dated 23.11.1983. As per that document, plaintiff came into absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and the building thereon. Subsequently, the defendant took the building on rent and executed Ext. A2 Vadakachit dated 1.12.1983. By that Vadakachit, the defendant undertook to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. According to the Vadakachit, the building was given on lease upto 31.5.1984. Defendant paid rent only upto 31.3.1984. The rent for the subsequent two months was outstanding. Ext. A3 notice was issued to the defendant terminating the tenancy and for arrears of rent. There was no reply from the defendant. Hence, the suit was filed for a decree for evicting the defendant from the plaint schedule property and for realising the arrears of rent, which was quantified as Rs. 720/-.

(2.) Respondent/defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. Defendant contended that the plaint schedule property belonged to him and his brother Kandan and his children. The property is in their joint possession and enjoyment and it remains undivided. According to him, even though he executed Ext. Al document, that was under the bonafide belief that what he executed was a simple mortgage. He denied the execution of Ext. A2 vadakachit. According to the defendant, he was never dispossessed and he was never a tenant of the plaintiff. The documents referred to in the plaint as assignment deed and cooly chit are collusive.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court raised six issues. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and examined the scribe of Ext. Al document as P.W. 2. On the side of the plaintiff, Ext. Al to Ext. A6 were marked and on the side of the defendant, no documents were marked. Defendant examined himself as DW 1 and examined Kandan as D.W. 2.