KANNU PILLAI Vs. PANKAJAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decrees of both the Subordinate courts in so far as they relate to dismissing his suit for recovery of possession of the suit property described as Sy. No. 1069 of the Mattancherry Village. The suit, among other reliefs was also for recovery of the site on which a hut or a homestead appears to be existing and the recovery was sought for of the site after removal of the building or after paying the necessary compensation in respect of the building.

(2.) The events that have led up to this litigation are these: There was originally a lease in favour of one Kannappan. According to the plaintiff, this Kannappan, who was in possession of the property as a lessee, appears to have inducted into possession his niece one Bhavani in or about the year 1118, who in turn on the basis of this permission given by Kannappan as lessee has put up a building on the property. In Thulam 1119, as evidenced by Ext. VI, there has been an assignment of the rights in respect of this building by Bhavani in favour of one George, who in turn under Ext. VII of the year 1951 has assigned it in favour of the first defendant. The second defendant is the husband of the first defendant and the third defendant is a mortgagee of the item, in pursuance of the mortgage executed by the first defendant alone.

(3.) The suit was contested on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to get an eviction of the site after removal of the building and protection was also claimed by the parties on the basis that the first defendant is a kudikidappukaran entitled to protection by virtue of the Cochin Proclamation, 18/1122. There are also certain other defences raised in respect of the rate of rent and damages claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff appears to have claimed at the rate of Rs. 5 a month, whereas the defendants contended that they are liable to pay only at Re. 1-8-0 per year. The third defendant was satisfied with contending that from and out of any amounts that may be payable to the defendants as compensation his mortgage claim should be satisfied.