IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 AS.No. 324 OF 1998(A) --------------------- OS.527/1989 OF PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM APPELLANT/4TH DEFENDANT: --------------------------------- RAMAN PILLAI CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, PADINJARE KAVIL HOUSE, ERAVINALOOR KARA, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.P.R.RAJA RESPONDENTS/PLAITIFFS 2 TO 20 & DEFTS. 2,3 & 6 TO 17: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.D. RAMAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT SREEVARDHAN BHAVAN, PERUNTHAI, TRIVANDRUM. 2. AMMINIAMMA, MAYA DEVI AMMA OF DO.DO. 3. ARAYANAN NAMBIAR, MAYA RAMAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT ARATTUKADAVIL, NAMBIAR MADOM, MUNKANKAVIL, CHENGANNOOR. 4. SARADAMMA, W/O. RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, SREESADANAM, PALLIAYADAKKUMUKKU, TRIVANDRUM. 5. RAGHAVANNAMBIAR VIJAYARAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, BANK OFFICER OF DO.DO. 6. SARADAMMA BALAMANIMMA OF DO.DO. 7. SARADAMMA RADHAMANIAMMA, REPRESENTED BY HER MUKTIYAR 4TH PLAINTIFF SARADAMMA. 8. SARADAMMA INDIRAMMA OF DO.DO. 9. THAKAMMA NAGIARAMMA, RESIDING AT NAMBIAR MADAM, ERAVINALLOOR KARA, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE. 10. T.K. RAMAN NAMBIAR, GOVT. SERVANT OF DO. DO.DO A.S. 324/1998 2 11. T.K. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR OF DO.DO. 12. T.K. RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR OF DO.DO. 13. T. RAMADEVI OF DO. DO. 14. T. SOBHANAKUMARI OF DO.DO. 15. T. VIJAYAKUMARI OF DO. DO.DO 16. T. SATHIKUMARI OF DO. DO.DO 17. T. USHAKUMARI OF DO. DO.DO 18. T. VANAJAKUMARI OF DO. DO.DO 19. T. JAYAKUMARI OF DO. DO.DO 20. RAMANPILLAI SIVANKUTTY NAIR, RESIDING AT PADINJARE KAVIL HOUSE, ERAVINALLOOR KARA, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE. 21. RAMAN PILLAI BALAKRISHNAN NAIR OF DO. DO.DO 22. N.S.S. KARAYOGAM NO. 281, RAVINALLOOR, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT K.S. SANKARA PILLAI, ADVOCATE, KOTTAYAM. 23. THE PRESIDENT, KALADY ADVAITHA ASRAMAM, KALADY. 24. P.G. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, RESIDING AT PADINJAREKAVIL HOUSE, ERAVINALLOOR KARA, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE. 25. P.G. APPUKUTTAN NAIR OF DO. DO.DO 26. P.G. RAVIKUMAR OF DO. DO.DO 27. SUKUMARI OF DO. DO.DO 28. JAGADHAMMA OF DO. DO.DO 29. VIJAYAKUMARI P.S. PULLICKAL KIZHAKKATHIL,PARAVATTOM P.O. 30. SREEDEVI P.S. OF DO. DO.DO 31. VINAYAKUMAR P.S. OF DO. DO.DO A.S. 324/1998 3 32. VIJAYAKUMAR P.S. OF DO. DO. 33. LEELAVATIAMMA OF DO. DO.DO (IT IS RECORDED THAT 4TH RESPONDENT DIED AND RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ALREADY IN THE PARTY ARRAY ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VIDE ORDER DATED 16.10.2000 ON MEMO DATED 3.10.2000.) R1, R2, R3 & R11 ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SRI.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN & ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R.22 THIS APPEAL SUIT HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.S. 324/1998 4 ORDER ON CMP NO. 1402/2001 - DISMISSED 21.7.2010. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. KNC/- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. No. 324 OF 1998 = = = = = = = = == = DATED THIS, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottayam, in O.S. 527 OF 1989. The suit is one for recovery of possession on the strength of title and the court below granted recovery of possession of the property except 20 cents of land in the possession of the 6th defendant NSS Karayogam. Defendants 8 to 12 were directed to demolish and remove the plaint schedule third item at their own expenses. Now it is the 4th defendant alone who has come up in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit before me that he is claiming 8 cents out of item 1 of the plaint schedule property and according to the learned counsel, the plaintiffs have not substantiated their title to the property and therefore, they are not entitled to a decree for recovery of possession. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are members of the Thonnackal Madom family, which is also known as Periyanadu Nambiar Madom. According to them, the plaint schedule property was entrusted to A.S. 324/1998 2 Agamananda Swamikal by virtue of a trust deed for the purpose of running a Sanskrit school and there was a recital in the document that when the school does not function or it becomes defunct, it shall revert back to the original owners namely, the plaintiffs. The school which was started by the Swamiji became defunct and by virtue of the terms of the document, it had reverted back to the family of the plaintiffs and therefore, the plaintiffs are having title to the property and hence entitled for recovery of possession. 4. On the other hand, the defendants would contend that the plaintiffs have no title or possession over the plaint schedule property ad the property was taken on lease by the father of the defendant from Agamananda Swamikal on a lease arrangement and while they were continuing in possession and enjoyment of the property, they had moved an application before the Land Tribunal and obtained certificate of purchase. According to them, they are tenants of the property entitled to fixity of tenure and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief prayed for. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant very strongly submits the position of law that in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title, the plaintiffs have to succeed on the basis of their title ad not on the weakness or loopholes of th case of the defendants. I do not have any quarrel with the said proposition. But we have to analyze the case and when A.S. 324/1998 3 it is found that the defendants can claim tenancy right only under the plaintiffs, then virtually, it amounts to admission of title and therefore, a further probe into the question of title may not arise. The documents referred to are Exts.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 is a release deed executed by Ramakrishnan Nair etc. in favour of Agamananda Swamikal. There is a clear recital in the document that the said property was obtained by them as per an earlier document and as per stipulation to surrender the property to run a Sanskrit school the document is effected. Ext.A2 is by another set of persons relinquishing their right over the property on the very same basis for the purpose of running the institution. Ext.A3 is the trust deed created by the members of the plaintiffs' family to Sreemad Agamananda Swamikal. The recitals in the document would clearly show that the purpose and purport for which the document is executed is to enable the Swamikal to start a Sanskrit school. There is also a clear recital in the document that if it does not materialize or it becomes defunct it will revert back to the family of the plaintiffs. So, a perusal of Exts.A1 to A3 would establish the following: (i) The plaintiffs' family are the original owners of the property. (ii) They have executed documents in favour of Agamananda Swamikal for the purpose of running A.S. 324/1998 4 a Sanskrit school. (iii) There is also a recital in the document that when the said institution becomes defunct it will revert back to the plaintiffs' family. Therefore, I am not in a position to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiffs have no title to the property. 6. Another significant document is Ext.A4. It is a certified copy of the order of this Court in C.R.P. 1251/1986 and connected Civil Revision Petitions. Here, the brief facts would reveal that the legal heirs of Raman Pillai moved separate applications for certificate of purchase of the property claiming tenancy right under the Kaladi Advaithasramam. Some of the representatives of the present plaintiffs intervened and joined as respondents. The Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority granted certificate of purchase in favour of the defendants in the suit. When the matter reached up this Court, this Court exhaustively considered the entire materials and held that by virtue of the defunct of the educational institution, the property has reverted back to the family of the plaintiffs and thereby the family of the plaintiffs have become title holders and owners of the property and further the alleged lease set up by the said Raman Pillai from Advaithasramam cannot be accepted and this Court found that a servant would not be entrusted with this property when it is given for a A.S. 324/1998 5 specific purpose of starting an educational institution. Therefore, reversing the orders of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, this Court held that the defendants are not entitled to fixity of tenure and therefore, dismissed all the Land Tribunal applications. I think there is no further appeal against that orders and those orders have become final. When it is so, the following facts clearly emerge that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property. The defendants are not claiming any right under adverse possession or limitation nor they can do it. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession on the strength of title as ordered by the trial court. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the trial court. Therefore, the appeal lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed; but without costs. As a last attempt, the learned counsel for the appellant wanted to show some leniency. I feel that the plaintiffs can consider the difficulties that has been caused to the defendants and further, there can be an amicable settlement between the parties. This judgment would not stand in the way and I request and persuade the lawyers to take active interest for such a settlement as well. M.N. KRISHNAN, (JUDGE) KNC/- A.S. 324/1998 6 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. No. 324 OF 1998 = = = = = = = = == = DATED: 21ST JULY, 2010. J U D G M E N T