The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of clear and specific pleadings in asserting tenancy rights, as well as the authority of the Land Tribunal to decide questions regarding tenancy rights.

JUDGMENT :

Defendants 5, 6 and 11 in O.S.No.111/1989 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Ponnani, are the appellants in this appeal, filed under Section 100 and Order XLII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the C.P.C.’ hereinafter). They assail the decree and judgment in the above suit, dated 31.1.2006 and the decree and judgment of the appellate court in A.S.No.27/2006, dated 6.11.2020, arose therefrom.

2. Respondents herein are the plaintiffs and the other defendants.

3. Heard Sri.Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Sri.P.Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. As per order, dated 23.3.2021, my learned predecessor admitted this appeal formulating the following substantial question of law:

Whether the two courts below are justified in appreciating the findings of the Land Tribunal with regard to the effects, nature and transaction in obtaining the lease from Bhattathiripad?

5. Originally, suit was filed seeking recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property, based on title and also for permanent prohibitory injunction. The case put up by the plaintiffs before the trial court was that, the plaint schedule property originally belonged to late Sankara Narayanan Bhattathiripad of Mullapalli Mana and Smt.Unnimayamma, the mother of the plaintiffs, obtained mortgage right over the same. Later, Smt.Unnimayamma purchased tenancy rights over the same property, as per assignment deed, dated 21.5.1964. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs who are the children of Smt.Unnimayamma, were residing at different places and Smt.Unnimayamma alone was residing at the house constructed in the plaint schedule property. When Smt.Unnimayamma was affected with certain diseases in the year 1965, she was in need of assistance of someone to manage her routine life. Thereafter, the 1st plaintiff reached the place from Bangalore and Smt.Lakshmi Amma and Smt.Kunhi Amma were permitted to reside along with Smt.Unnimayamma in the plaint schedule building. Smt.Lakshmi Amma is none other than the daughter of late Madhavi Amma who was the elder sister of Smt.Unnimayamma, whereas, Smt.Kunhi Amma was the younger sister of Smt.Unnimayamma. Since the defendants refused the demand to get vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, the present suit was filed.

6. Defendants filed written statement as well as additional written statement and inter alia raised contention that ‘the plaint schedule property originally belong to Sankara Narayana Bhattathiripad of Mullapalli Mana.’ Further contention was that Smt.Unnimayamma obtained tenancy right from Sankara Narayanan Bhattathiripad and later, the said tenancy was purchased by 3rd defendant from Smt.Unnimayamma, orally.

7. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.908/1995 was filed before the Munsiff Court, Ponnani to refer the question of tenancy before the Land Tribunal, at the instance of defendants. When the Munsiff Court dismissed the application, the defendants filed C.R.P.No.1986/1995(E) before this Court. As per order in the above C.R.P., dated 17.9.1998, this Court directed the trial court to re-consider the prayer in I.A.No.908/1995 without taking into consideration of the statements in the caveat. Thereafter, the order in I.A.No.908/1995 was re-considered and the matter referred to Land Tribunal and the Land Tribunal, as per order, dated 12.10.2004, negatived claim of tenancy at the instance of the defendants.

8. Thereafter, the trial court recorded evidence confined to that of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10 on the side of plaintiffs. DW1 and Exts.B1 to B21 on the side of the defendants. Ext.C1 and Ext.X1 were also marked. Finally, the trial court found tenancy in favour of Smt.Unnimayamma and in turn, in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the defendants were directed to vacate the house situated in the plaint schedule property within a period of 3 months and also granted permanent prohibitory injunction, thereafter. A.S.No.27/2006 was filed b