RUGMINI Vs. SATHYABHAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trial court granted a decree to the plaintiff for possession of the plaint schedule property which contains a house. The decree was taken in appeal, but the defendant again lost. Hence she is in second appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is stated below : The plaint schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff's husband Appukutty Moothan in 1954 as per Ext A1 sale deed. The plaintiff is the sole heir of her husband. The defendant is the daughter of Appukutty Moothan's brother. As Appukutty Moothan was residing alone in the house in the plaint schedule property after the death of his first wife, he brought the defendant to his house. The defendant and her family members were residing in the said house along with the plaintiff and her husband. The defendant being a permissive occupier is liable to vacate the house.

(3.) The defendant raised the following contentions : The plaintiff has no absolute right in the plaint schedule property. She is only a co-owner of it along with the defendant and her siblings. The plaint schedule property was purchased with the joint funds of the plaintiff's husband and the defendant's father. However, the property was happened to be purchased in the name of plaintiff's husband Appukutty Moothan. That does not confer any exclusive title to him to the plaint schedule property. The defendant with her family members are residing in the house in the plaint schedule property as the co-owner of it and not as a permissive occupier. The title of the plaintiff and her husband to the plaint schedule property was lost by adverse possession and limitation.