IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 AS.No. 200 of 2000(E) ------------------------------ OS.231/1994 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PLAINTIFFS ------------------------ 1. SREE VEMANNA DEVASWAM BY TRUSTEE BOARD CHAIRMAN, REP.BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI.K.VENUGOPAL VETTOM AMSOM, VEMANNA DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. SREE VEMANNA DEVASWAM BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER, K.VENUGOPAL, VETTOM AMSOM, VEMANNA DESOM TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT ------------------------- MULLAPPALLI MANAKKAL ESWARAN ALIAS EESSAAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI, VETTOM AMSOM, VEMANNA DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.1743/2000 IN AS. 200/2000 DISMISSED 22/06/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. NO.200 OF 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tirur in O.S.231/94. The suit is one for recovery of possession on the strength of title with past and future mesne profits. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the property described in the plaint schedule belonged to Vemanna Devaswom. It is contended that the trustee namely Sankaran Namboodiri, father of the plaintiffs, had leased 10 cents of property and the remaining which is the plaint schedule continued to be in his possession. It is contended that no steps were taken to get that property recovered from him and as the property A.S. 200 OF 2000 -2- belonged to the Devaswom it is prayed that there may be a decree for recovery of possession. 2. On the other hand the defendant had denied the title and possession of the plaintiffs and had contended that the property belonged to him exclusively and therefore there cannot be any decree for recovery of possession. The trial court on an analysis of the materials did not grant any relief in favour of the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. It is against that decision the plaintiffs have come up in appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as for the respondent. The suit is one for recovery of possession on the strength of title. It is a settled principle that in such a suit a plaintiff has to succeed or fail on his own case and he cannot make use A.S. 200 OF 2000 -3- of or pick up loopholes in the case of the defendant to succeed. 4. Ext.A1 is a document of the year 1927 which is a mortgage executed by one Ittiri in favour of Parameswaran Namboodiri. It is recited in that document that the property belonged in Jenm to him and it is held by Ittiry under him. It is the entire plaint schedule property. 5. Ext.A2 is the registered surrender deed executed by Ittiri in favour of this Parameswaran Namboodiri in February, 1938. There also it is very specifically recited that the property belonged to Thampuran and that he had taken lease of the property and he is surrendering the same. 6. Ext.A3 is a lease deed wherein one Velu had executed a Verumpatta cheettu in favour of A.S. 200 OF 2000 -4- Sankaran Namboodiri, son of Parameswaran Namboodiri. It is recited in that document that the property described in the document had been in the possession of Velu and his predecessors- in-interest and at the request of the Jenmi it is permitted to be treated it as a Devaswom property and he had attorned with the promise that he will pay the rent etc. to the Devaswom. It only relates to 10 cents of property which is not the subject matter of the plaint schedule. 7. The other document namely Adangal extract also does not show that the property belonged to the Devaswom namely Vemanna Devaswom as contended by the plaintiff. So the documentary evidence available in this case would only reveal that the property belonged to Mr. Parameswaran Namboodiri and subsequently at the behest of Sankaran Namboodiri, son of A.S. 200 OF 2000 -5- Parameswaran Namboodiri, 10 cents covered by Ext.A3 had been treated as the property belonging to the Devaswom. There is absolutely no recital with respect to the remaining property and Exts.A1 and A2 would show that it belonged to the Mana of Parameswaran Namboodiri and it does not belong to Devaswom or the property is held by any of them as trustee under the Devaswom. Therefore the documents produced are totally insufficient to prove the title of the plaintiffs in order to succeed in the suit. Learned Subordinate Judge has considered the matter only in that perspective and had arrived at a decision holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. I do not find any mistake committed by the Subordinate Judge and therefore the appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed but under the circumstances without A.S. 200 OF 2000 -6- any order as to costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- A.S. 200 OF 2000 -7- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = A.S. No.200 OF 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 22nd June, 2010.