PARATTAHATH KUNHI MAYAN Vs. PARATTAHATH MUHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE think this decree cannot be supported. The plaintiff sues to recover certain land which was let by the plaintiff's late Karnavan to the first defendant and his late father. The first defendant has transferred his right to the second and third defendants. The lease having expired the plaintiff sues to recover the land. The District Judge dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff could not recover the land as it is proved that that the land belongs equally to the Tavazhi of the plaintiff and to the Tavazhi of the third defendant and he held that the plaintiff should have sued for partition.

(2.) POSSESSION of the land was, however, obtained by the third defendant from the tenant of the plaintiff's Karnavan, and in these circumstances he cannot oppose the plaintiff's claim See Pasupati V/s. Narayanan (1889) I.L.R. 13 M. 335 and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. We, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsiff with costs in this and in the lower appellate Court.