first defendant was entitled to possession of any area in excess of the first Kuthakapattom for 12 years and c whether the.
was delayed and was only granted on October 20, 1939.On October 24, 1939 the plaintiff companyplained of dispossession.
Although the suit pended for 17 years in the Sub Court numberapplication for amendment was made.
The plaintiff was fined under the Regulations and was evicted from the 160 acres.
AG, proved by the village Munsiff who was personally present, establishes that eviction was from 160 acres.
In other documents also the plaintiff companyplained of eviction from land in excess of 160 acres and dispossession from buildings.
In 1928 the plaintiff had filed O.S. 156/1103 against the Government for declaration of possession and injunction in respect of the 160 acres of land and L 1 b , but the suit was dismissed in default and a revision application against the order of dismissal was also dismissed by the High Court of Kerala.
The Society applied for Kuthakapattom lease of this area on August 11, 1938.
AT, AT 1 and AT 2 the encroached area is shown as 160 acres.
53,085/ .
This made a mention of land from which, the 1st accused plain tiff was evicted.
The Mahazar Ex.
On September 29, a companyplaint Ex.
The suit had delayed the Poramboke case as a tempo rary injunction has been issued against Government.
Subsequently it attempted by argument to limit its defence to L 1 b which was additionally granted to it, in the Kuthakapattom Ex.
The High Court reversed the decree of the trial Judge and decreed it against the Society and its Manager ordering possession of the entire suit lands with mesne profits past and future, and companypensation for any waste.
The suit lands are shown as L 1 on a map Ex.
The case of dacoity was virtually withdrawn and the accusedwere discharged.
L prepared by Commissioners in CMA 206 of 1110 E. and proved by P.W. 10.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 23, 1965 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No.406 of 1961.
In its submission, if a possessory suit analogous to s. 9 of the Indian Specific Relief Act was number filed by the plaintiffs only remedy was to, file.
The main companytroversy, which was decided by the High Court, was whether the plaintiff companyld maintain a suit for possession, apart from a possessory suit under the Travancore laws analogous to s. 9 of the Indian Specific Relief Act without proof of title basing him.
K. Nambiar, N. A. Subramanian, K., Velayudhan Nair,T. K. Unnithan, Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for the appellant.
Of the latter two of the branches were the Interdict de vi catidiana by which possession was ordered to be restored on an application made within the year where one had been ejected from land by force, provided there had number been vi clam aut precario from the ejector.
The Society in its case denied the right of the plaintiff to bring a suit for ejectment or its liability for companypensation as claimed by the plaintiff.
V. Gupte, T. P. Paulose, B. Dutta, Annamma Alexander, J. Dadachanji.,
All this was very clear evidence.
This was number allowed for very good reasons.
3,392/ from October 16,1939.
self mainly on his prior possession and whether the Society companyld defend itself pleading the title of the Government.
It was for 165 acres and the Society was admittedly put in possession of it on July 24, 1939 or thereabouts.
On October 13, 1939 one Krishna Nair made a companyplaint Ex.
There were two interdicts known as deprecario and de vi.
16 on July 28, 1939 that he was dispossessed of suit buildings and requesting that 160 acres be companyrectly demarcated.
The trial Judge, however, held that if the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession he would also be entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.
1 was number companysidered relevant and the suit was decided on the basis of the facts existing on the date of the companymencement of the suit.
The next companytention of the Society is that a suit in ejectment cannot lie wihout title and a prior trespasser cannot maintain the suit generally against the latter trespasser and more particularly in this case in respect of lands belonging to Government specially when the latter trespasser even if it was, one had the authority of the true owner either given originally or subsequently but relating back to the date of the trespass.
The High Court rejected this application by its judgment under appeal and, awarded possession against the Society of the entire suit land.
Possession of L 1 a was decreed with companyts, mesne profits past and future, and companypensation for waste against defendants 3 to 6.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The trial Judge held that the possession of the plaintiff dated back only to 1920 21 and that he was evicted from portion L 1 b as per plan AZ and that the Society was in possession from the time it entered into possession of 160 acres.
The defendants improvements were estimated at Rs.
are admittedly Government Poramboke lands.
It is, however, to be seen that in the Mahazar Exs.
If the Society was in possession of 291.23 acres, it would number have omitted on August 11, 1939 to apply for the additional area as well.
By the judgment and decree under appeal the suit of the first respondent, Rev. Father K. C. Alexander shortly the plaintiff was decreed in respect of the suit lands of which, he had sought possession from the appellant, Nair Service Society Ltd. shortly the Society or the first defendant and some others who are shown as respondents 2 to The facts in this appeal are as follows The plaintiff filed a suit in forma pauperis on October 13, 1942 against the Society, its Kariasthan Manager and four others for possession of 131.23 acres of land from Survey Nos.
They have number been shown as proforma respondents by the Society.
A mere possessory suit after the expiry of 6 months was number possible.
The two Survey Nos.
The High Court also points out that the rubber quotas from the rubber trees companytinued to be in the name of the plaintiff except in 160 acres in which the quotas were transferred to the name of Government.
The Society also submits that as trespass on Government land was prohibited by law the plaintiff companyld number get the assistance of the companyrt.
The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of these lands for over 70 years.
AO was made by Phillippose Abraham P.W. 8 , the Manager of the plaintiff, that the land was trespassed upon by the Societys men who had harvested the paddy.
There are other branches of these main arguments to which reference need number be made here.
The plaintiff filed an appeal in forma pauperis.
Further even if some more area was taken over from the plaintiff, it would be small and number as much as 131.23 acres or even 75.76 acres.
The main issues were.
State of Travancore and for mesne profits past and future with companypensation for waste.
On the dismissal of that suit the first Kuthakapattom lease was granted to the Society.
O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for res pondent No .1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment of the High Court of Kerala, December 23, 1965, reversing the decree of the Sub Court, Mavelikara. ,
1632 of 1966.
The High Court judgment mentions the names of several other witnesses who have also deposed in the same way.
However, on the last day of hearing of, the appeal in the High Court December 14, 1965 the Society applied for an amendment of the written statement limiting its defence to portion L 1 b disclaiming all interest in portion, L 1 a and attempted to plead the grant of the second Kuthakapattom in its favour on March 10, 1948.
The Society asked for amendments several times, the last being on October 15, 1958.
The Society also companytends more specifically that there is numbertrue principle of law that possession companyfers a good title except against the owner or that possession is a companyclusive title against all but the true owner.
a suit for ejectment pleading and proving his title to the suit land.
The other defendants remined ex parte in the suit and did number appeal.
a whether the plaintiff was in possession of lands L 1 for over 70 years and had improved these lands b whether the.
The subsequent grant of Kuthakapattom Ex.
In the year 1100 M.E. a Poramboke case for evicting him from an area shown as L 2 measuring 173.38 acres, but described in the present suit variously as 160, 161 and 165 acres, was started under the Travancore Land Conservancy Regulation IV of 1094 M.E. L.C. case No.
112/1100 M.E. by Pathanamathitta Taluk Cutchery.
780/1 and 780/2 of Rannipakuthy in the former.
This land is companyveniently described as 160 acres and has been so referred to by the High Court and the Sub Court.
AH against plaintiffs men of beating and dacoity.
In the alternative, the Society claimed the value, of improvements effected by it, in case the claim of the plaintiff was decreased against it.
trial Judge against the Society but was decreed against defendants 3 to 6 in respect of land L 1 a with mesne profits and companypensation for waste.
Another application was made for a second Kuthakapattom in respect of the additional land on the basis of possession but only after certain events happened.
The suit went to trial on 13 issues.
trespass was on 13/16 October, 1939 or whether the plaintiff was evicted on July 24, 1939 by the Government from the suit land in addition to the 160 acres in respect of which action was taken in the Land Conservancy case.
The lease was for 12 years.
Plaintiffs case was that on 13/16 October, 1939 a number of persons acting on behalf Of the.
The other d evi armata for ejection by armed force, was without restriction of time.
The lease was granted but has number been produced in the case.
