PARAMESWARAN THUPPEN NAMBOORI Vs. MANI MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant and the respondent are the same in both these cases.The appellant is the first plaintiff in L.A.R.Nos.54 and 260 of 1954 on the file of the District Court,Kottayam,while the respondent is the second plaintiff therein.L.A.R.54 related to the acquisition of 42.700 cents of land in Sy.No.166/3A in Manjoor Village,and L.A.R.260 related to the acquisition of 23.500 cents of land in the same survey number.In both cases,the appellant claimed that the acquired lands belonged to his illom,that the respondent was in possession of them under a lease deed,dated 30th Makaram 1083 executed by his father in favour of the appel­lant,and that he was,therefore,entitled to the whole compensation awarded for the two lands.He also contended that he had filed O.S.No.46 of 1122 in the Munsiff's Court,Ettumanoor for evicting the respondent and others from the leased property and for arrears of rent,that the defendants in that suit were denying the lease and contending that the property belonged to the respondent,and that the said suit may,therefore,be tried along with these references,or the compensation amounts may be directed to be paid in accordance with the decision in the suit.The respondent contended that he was the absolute owner of the acquired lands and he was entitled to the whole compensation.He also claimed enhanced compensation.These references were tried along with some other references;and the District Court disposed all of them by a single judgment.We are con­cerned in these appeals only with the question who is entitled to the compensation awarded for the lands acquired in the above two cases.

(2.) SURVEY No.166/3A in Manjoor Village has an extent of 1.76 acres.In his statements of claim submitted in the District Court,though the appellant claimed that the lands concerned in both cases were held by the respondent under the lease deed,dated 30th Makaram 1083,he shifted his ground during the trial.Ext.D is a copy of a lease deed produced by him.It relates only to 35 cents of land in Sy.No.166/3A.In the light of this document,he claimed that the respondent held only 35 cents under Ext.D,and that he was holding the remaining part of the above survey number under a subsequent oral lease.The respondent in his turn put forward many contentions.He contended that Sy.No.166/3A belonged to one Konthuruthy Illom,and not to the plaintiff's illom,that Ext.D did not relate to this survey number,but to a neighbouring property bearing Sy.No.166/2,and that Ext.D did not take effect.The learned District Judge held that according to the Settlement Register the whole of Survey No.166/3A belonged to the appellant,that Ext.D related to a part of the said survey num­ber,and that the appellant failed to establish a subsisting title to the remaining part of the said property.He further held that it was not possible without further enquiry to fund the exact portion of the land acquired out of the said 35 cents,that in respect of that portion,the compensation should be apportioned bet­ween the appellant and the respondent in the ratio of 2:1,and that the whole of the balance compensation should be paid to the respondent.Accordingly,he directed the Land Acquisition Officer to award compensation to the rival claimants on the above basis.The appeals are directed against the above decision.The respon­dent has also filed cross -objections in both appeals claiming the whole compensation for himself.

(3.) THE parties repeated before us all the contentions put forward in the trial court.Survey No.166/3A in Manjoor Village having an extent of 1.76 acres stands in the name of Konthuruthy illom in the Settlement Register.The respondent's contention was that the appel­lant's illom was Mattapally,and that the appellant had no right to this property,which stood registered in the name of Konthuruthy illom.According to the appellant,his illom was known by both the above names;and the pro­perty belonged to his illom.Ext.C is a lease deed executed by one Lookka on 14th Makaram 1081 in favour of the grand -mother of the Appellant as his guardian in respect of Survey No.166/2,which lies adjacent to Sy.No.166/3A.In that document the name of the appellant's illom is stated Mattapally,while the property leased is described as belonging to Konthuruthy illom of the appellant.Ext.J,dated 1st Meenam 1077 is counter -part of a kanam deed relating to Sy.No.166/5A executed by the predecessor -in -inte­rest of the respondent in favour of the appellant's grandmother acting as his guardian.In this document,the name of the appellant's illom is stated as Mattapally,while the property is des­cribed as belonging to the Konthuruthy illom of the appellant.These two documents clearly establish that the plaintiff's illom was known by both the above names;and there is also the evidence of the appellant's son,who was examined as P.W.5 in support of the said case.The respondent's contention to the contrary is devoid of any merit.