SEETHA @ SEETHALAKSHMY AMMAL Vs. P. P. CHEMBAKAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit properties and other items belonged to deceased Padmanabha Iyer. He executed Ext. A1 will bequeathing life estate to his wife and reversion to his two daughters. Respondent plaintiff is one of the daughters and Parvathi Ammal is the other. Padmanabha Iyer died in 1955 and his widow in 1962. Daughters settled their claims by two release deeds of 1963 executed between them. When Padmanabha Iyer died in 1955, Krishnan and Chami were in possession as tenants. They surrendered to the widow in 1957. Plaint schedule items are the properties obtained by the plaintiff, who is one of the daughters, and the other items were obtained by Parvathi Ammal after the death of the widow on the basis of the release deeds. So much facts are not in dispute.

(2.) O . S. No. 114 of 1974, which gave rise to A. S. No. 188 of 1979, was filed for recovery of possession on the strength of title. Sole defendant, deceased Natesa Iyer was the father of the appellants, who were impleaded as additional defendants after his death. Natesa Iyer and DW 2 Kalyana Sundara Iyer are the brothers of plaintiff and Parvathi Ammal. Case of the plaintiff is that from 1957, DW 2 was managing the properties till 1964 under a power of attorney jointly executed by the father and mother and after he surrendered in 1964, she was in direct possession and Natesa Iyer was assisting her. Her further case is that she executed a power of attorney in favour of the defendant in 1971 when she went to Benarus and on her return, the defendant refused to surrender the properties even though the power of attorney was cancelled. But the case of the defendant is that DW 2 himself was cultivating as tenant of the mother after the previous tenants surrendered in 1957 for an annual rent of 500 paras of paddy and he surrendered in 1960. The mother then entrusted him on oral lease for the same rent. After her death, he attorned to the plaintiff and is even now continuing as tenant. Management under the power of attorney was denied by him.

(3.) LAND Tribunal and the Trial Court seem to have overlooked material items of evidence and circumstances, including clear admissions of the plaintiff and her sister. Trial Court was bound to accept the finding of the Land Tribunal. Deposition of the original defendant before the Land Tribunal is Ext. B6 and that of the plaintiff is Ext. B10. She was not examined before the Civil Court where she did not let in any other oral evidence. Defendant died before the suit came up for trial. One of the appellants was examined as DW 1 and the prior lessee as DW 2. DW 3 is not of much use. DWs 1 and 2 and Ext. B6 proved the lease transactions even though Ext. B6 and the evidence of DW 1 could be said to be interested. That stigma cannot be attached to DW 2 who is equally related to both though he was also branded as an interested witness. The oral evidence was amply supported by the admissions in Ext. B10 and other admissions of the plaintiff and her sister in various documents.