KESAVAN NAMBOODIRI Vs. NARAYANA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, whose suit for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession of the suit properties has been dismissed by both the subordinate courts, is the appellant in this second appeal. In view of the concurrent findings recorded as against the appellant on the question of possession, it is not necessary for me to go into any great detail regarding the claim based on title and also on the question as to whether the proceedings are not in any way barred also by action taken under the Survey and Boundaries Act. According to the plaintiff, the property belongs in jenm to him and it forms portion of a land called Thoppiyil Pallial situated between the said land and Bharatha Puzha. It is his further case, that the land was entrusted on lease to one Mundan, father of defendants 5 to 8 under a pattomchit of 1--32--1930. He took proceedings to evict the said Mundan and the first defendant in these proceedings was also a party to the said suit and he was included as a sub-lessee under Mundan. As the first defendant contended in those proceedings that he was in possession of the property directly under a grant in his favour from the Government, the present action has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the suit properties from defendants 1 to 3 who are in actual possession of the properties. The 4th defendant, namely, the State of Madras, was also added as a party because the 4th defendant claimed title to the property on the ground that the title vests in the State and that the necessary grant has been made by them in favour of one Pangassa Menon and later on in the names of defendants 1 to 3. The State also gave particulars of the patta under which the property was being held. The State also took up the plea that by virtue of certain proceedings taken under the provisions of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, VIII of 1923, whereby the suit property has been included as poramboke and not having challenged these proceedings, the plaintiff is debarred from claiming any relief in these proceedings. Defendants 1 to 4 also took up the plea that in any event the plaintiff's suit will have to fail on the ground that he has not been in possession within 12 years of the suit.

(2.) Several issues were framed by the trial court and the main issues were on the question of title of the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff has proved possession within 12 years of suit. It may be stated that the plaintiff's case was that the suit property was not only comprised in a lease executed in favour of Mundan, father of defendants 5 to 8 on 1--12--1930 but that the said Mundan was also in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It may also be stated that the case of the plaintiff is that the present first defendant was holding the property as a sub-lessee of the said Mundan. It was really on this basis that the suit O.S. 66 of 1946 was filed by the plaintiff for evicting his lessee Mundan and the first defendant whom the plaintiff claimed as sub-lessee from the said Mundan. But the present first defendant promptly repudiated the claim made by the plaintiff. The first defendant set up a definite case that he was in possession of the property by virtue of the grant by the defendant No. 4 and that from 1904 at least he has been in such uninterrupted possession of the properties.

(3.) It may be interesting to note that the suit O.S. 66 of 1946 was dismissed as against the present first defendant on the ground that he was holding directly from the Government and that the present plaintiff has no right to claim any reliefs as against him.