SEKHARAN Vs. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Second Appeal arises questioning the judgment delivered by the District Judge, Thodupuzha in A. S. No. 68/90 dated 13. 11. 1992. THE first defendant is the appellant and the plaintiff is the Respondent in this appeal.

(2.) THE respondent as plaintiff, filed O. S. No. 291/87 before the Court of Munsiff, Thodupuzha seeking for a decree of perpetual injunction against the Appellant from committing trespass into the plaint schedule room or from dispossessing the respondent and disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is admitted case of both the appellant, w ho is the first defendant and the respondent, plaintiff that the suit property, a building bearing Door No. 9/66 situate in Thodupuzha Municipality was jointly taken by the appellant and respondent on lease from the owner of the building, who is the second defendant in the suit on a monthly rental of Rs. 80/- out of which, the appellant and the respondent each has to pay a sum of Rs. 40/- per mensum to the landlady. THE respondent is possessing two licences, one for writing the documents and the other for preparing the copies of the written documents as scribe. THE appellant is in possession of only a licence of scribe. Both the appellant and the respondent were doing their above said evocations in the suit property peacefully till the year 1986. In that year, there arose ill-feeling and misunderstanding between the appellant and the respondent on the ground that the appellant was gaining over the clients or customers of the respondent. On account of the ill-feeling, the appellant happened to lodge a complaint to the local police, who made an attempt to make a compromise, but it ended in vain. Since the friction between the appellant and the respondent had been enlarging day by day, the appellant approached the branch of Kerala Documentary Writers and Scribe Association, at Thodupuzha. THE complaint given by the appellant to the branch of the said association at thodupuzha is marked as Ext. X2 dated 8. 7. 87. On the day itself, there was a conciliation talk in the presence of the members of the Association and finally, Ext. XI (b) agreement was entered into, as per which, the appellant has to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent, within a period of three months and on payment of the said amount, the respondent would vacate the premises by handing over the possession of the same, to the appellant. In case of default, in the payment of Rs. 15,000/- by the appellant to the respondent within the stipulated period, the respondent could occupy the entire building without paying any amounts to the appellant.

(3.) THE second defendant is the landlady of the suit building and she filed a written statement, contending that the suit itself is not maintainable, since she has leased out the building jointly in favour of both the appellant and the respondents. THEy also paid the rent jointly till 30. 10. 1997. THEreafter they have committed default in the payment of rent. To determine anything as to possession, in respect of the building, she is the only competent lady and the joint lessees among themselves could not make any arrangement in respect of possession detrimental to her interest and without her knowledge and consent.