The main legal point established in the judgment is that a purchase certificate obtained by one co-owner shall enure to the benefit of all co-owners, as provided under S.72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT :

Defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.50/2016 on the files of Munsiff Court, Nadapuram have filed this Second Appeal under Order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the decree and judgment in A.S.No.5/2021 on the files of Sub Court, Vadakara, whereby the learned Sub Judge confirmed the decree and judgment rendered by the trial court. The respondents are the plaintiffs as well as other defendants.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 2 to 4 on admission. Perused the verdicts under challenge and the relevant documents placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants.

3. I shall refer the parties in this appeal relegating their status before the trial court as `plaintiffs' and `defendants' hereafter for easy reference.

4. This is a Suit filed for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of title and the plaintiffs are the children of one Ayisha. According to the plaintiffs, Ayisha obtained leasehold right in respect of properties including the plaint schedule property as per registered assignment deed No.94/1953 executed by one Anthraman, who got right over the same, on the strength of another assignment deed No.21/1947. When the plaintiffs were minors, Ayisha died. Then one Soopy, the uncle of the minors, assumed their protection and the management of the properties of Ayisha. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule property is the property originally belonged to Ayisha and, being sharers as per Mohammedan Law, they are entitled to get recovery of the same from the defendants, who claim the same from Soopy.

5. The 1st defendant filed separate written statement. Similarly, the 4th defendant also filed separate written statement. The sum and substance of the contention in the written statements is that as per document No.11/1953 Soopy obtained janmam right over the entire property covered by document No.94/1953 and later he obtained patta in respect of the entire extent of property vide patta No.1329/1976 of Land Tribunal, Kunnummel. Thereafter Soopy gifted the property to his daughter as per Ext.B4 document No.1337/1976. So on the strength of Patta, the right of the plaintiffs were denied by the defendants.

6. The trial court ventured the matter. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B19 were marked on the side of the defendants. Exts.C1 and C2 court exhibits were also marked. On appreciation of the evidence, after hearing both sides, the trial court decreed the Suit as under:

“1. Defendants are directed to surrender the plaint schedule property which was shown as A plot in Ext.C2 plan to the plaintiffs within one month from today.

2. Defendants are directed to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiffs.

3. Ext.C2 plan shall form part of the decree.”

7. Challenging the verdict of the trial court, an appeal was preferred A.S.No.5/2021 by the defendants and the appellate court dismissed the same as per decree and judgment dated 26.09.2023.

8. At the time of admission hearing, the learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that as per Ext.A1 assignment deed No.94/1953, Ayisha obtained right over the property in `kole' measures coming to 25 X 35. Thereafter, as per Ext.A3, Kuzhikanam deed No.11/1953 Ayisha assigned her right in respect of the entire property covered by Ext.A1. Thereafter, Soopy obtained patta in respect of the entire property covered by Ext.A1, as per Ext.B5 purchase certificate dated 28.06.1976. According to the learned counsel, patta issued by the Land Tribunal under Section 72K of the Land Reforms Act is conclusive proof of title and therefore the plaintiffs should have filed a Suit to declare Ext.B5 purchase certificate as null and void or not binding upon them and without such prayer and allowing such prayer, recovery of possession, ignoring the purchase certificate, could not be granted and the trial court went wrong in granting relie