MADHAVI AMMA Vs. AYAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the legal representatives of the plaintiff. The suit was initially instituted for an injunction. It was instituted in the year 1967. Subsequently, it was amended as one for recovery of the property. The property in question is 65 cents in R S. No. 74/7. According to the appellants, they got title to this property by virtue of a partition in the tavazhi. The partition is evidenced by Ext. Al. It is dated 9-7-1958. Item 12 in E schedule is the disputed property. On the basis of this title, the plaintiffs wanted recovery of the property.

(2.) Another item 83 cents in R. S. No. 74/6 adjacent to the suit property also belonged to the tarwad. The tarwad assigned an item of property to the predecessor of the third defendant. This happened in 1950. The document evidencing that assignment is Ext. A7. After the assignment the father of the 4th defendant got an oral lease of the suit properly and 83 cents in Sy. No. 74/6. Subsequent to the oral lease, there was a marupat executed by the 4th defendant's father in favour of the landlord. This document is evidenced by Ext. B1 . The defendant also contended that even if the plaintiff bad any title to the suit property, they lost it by adverse possession and so, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The Trial Court after considering the evidence and circumstances in the case, held that the plaintiffs have proved their title to the property and that the defendants were notable to establish their case of adverse possession. After recording these findings, the Trial Court considered the question under S.7B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and found that the 4th defendant is entitled to the protection under S.7B of the Act and the court held that the 4th defendant has got tenancy right over the plaint schedule property. In the result, the suit was dismissed.