ANTONY Vs. THRESIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from the common judgment of the Principal Sub Judge of Cochin in OSNos. 151 of 1977, 110 of 1980 and 121 of 1980 and CRP No. 1982 of 1987 is filed from the common order of the Deputy Collector, Land Tribunal No.I, Ernakulam in S.M.P. Nos. 526/77 to 530/77 from which arose L.R.A.S.Nos. 64/86 to 68/86 and L.R.A. Nos. 91/86 to 95/86.

(2.) The appellants in AS No. 140 of 1988 were defendants 2 to 9 in OSNo. 151 of 1977 before the Sub Court of Cochin. The appellants in A.S. No.141 of 1988 were defendants 10 to 16 in that suit. The appellants in AS No.142 of 1988 were plaintiffs 2 to 6 in OSNo. 151 of 1977. The appellant in SA No. 172 of 1984 was the plaintiff in OSNo. 121 of 1980 and he was the 10th defendant in OSNo. 151 of 1977.

(3.) OSNo. 151 of 1977 can he taken as the leading case and for the purpose of convenience the rank of the parties can be stated as in OSNo. 151 of 1977. The plaint schedule properties in OSNo. 151 of 1977 contained two items. Item No. 1 was garden land measuring 57 cents and item No.2 was paddy land measuring 14 acres and 42 cents. The plaintiffs in OSNo. 151 of 1977 were the legal representatives of one Vareed. His father was Pethru. The said Pethru had 11 children by names, Vareed, first defendant John, Joseph, Sebastian, second defendant Antony third defendant Benedict, 4th defendant Xavier, Plamana, Mary, 19th defendant Vironi and 20th defendant Tresa. Vareed and his two sisters Plamana and Mary died. The plaintiffs allege that the plaint schedule properties belonged to Vareed and that they were in his possession. Vareed got right over the plaint schedule properties as per the originals of Exts. A1 and A2 pattom chits. The landlord was T.D. Devaswom and the pattom chits were executed by Vareed in favour of the said Devaswom. It was alleged that Vareed was in enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties till his death. Thus as his legal representative the plaintiffs claim title and possession over the plaint schedule properties. Ext. Al marupat was in 1113 M.E. and Ext.A2 marupat was on 8.8.1110 M.E. Vareed died on 16.11.1142 M.E. Defendants 1 to 4 are the brothers of Vareed Defendant 5 to 9 are the legal representatives of another brother by name Joseph. Defendants 10 to 16 are the legal representatives of deceased Plamana who was the sister of Vareed and defendants 17 and 18 were the legal representatives of another sister by name Mary. Defendants 19 and 20 are the remaining sisters of Vareed and Mary. The family assets left by Pethru were in the joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 and deceased Joseph. Then OS No. 106 of 1958 was filed by the 5th defendant for partition of the plaint A and B schedule properties. The present plaint schedule property were items 1 and 2 in B schedule. The first defendant claimed exclusive right over those two items. Thus he prayed for an injunction restraining the other members of the family from entering into B schedule properties. That claim was resisted by the present plaintiffs. The court appointed John as the receiver of those two items with a condition that he should deposit in court the annual income of Rs.240/-. John took possession of the two properties and deposited Rs.60/- as the first instalment. Thereafter he did not make any deposit. The court held that B Schedule properties were not partible. There was a direction that the dispute regarding B schedule properties would be settled in a fresh suit. The receiver continued management even after the final decree, which was passed on 17.12.1977. Then a petition was filed before the court and the court discharged the receiver on 11.11.1977. But no direction was given as to whom the receiver should hand over possession of the B schedule properties. It is thus that the present suit was filed on 18.11.1977 for declaration of title and possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs constructed a house and shifted to that house on 1.8.1957. Then the relationship with the defendants became strained. All the four sisters of Vareed were married away giving them dowry. They were represented in OS No. 106 of 1958. In the preliminary decree in OS No. 106 of 1958 it was found that the sisters of Vareed has no right over the plaint schedule properties.