IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a life interest in property does not constitute a license and that provisions of Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act do not apply when a life interest is created.

JUDGMENT :

1. Plaintiffs in a suit for mandatory injunction and damage are the appellants. Reliefs are sought with respect to plaint B schedule building. Plaint A Schedule property is 9 ½ cents of land in Sy No.1914/2 of Mattanchery village, together with a building bearing CC No. 8/1825 and Shop rooms bearing CC No. 8/1822 and 8/1823 situated therein. Plaint B Schedule property is the northern portion of the building bearing CC No. 8/1825, consisting of 10 rooms, including a kitchen.

2. The Plaintiffs are the wife and son of Krishna Prabhu, who derived the plaint schedule properties as per Ext.A1 Settlement deed of 1985 executed by his mother, Padmavathy. Padmavathy died, and Krishna Prabhu died on 23.12.2010.

3. The defendants are the children of Saraswathy Bhai, who is the sister of late Krishna Prabhu. Saraswathy Bhai died on 29.09.2012. Her husband, Narayana Pai, predeceased her in the year 1998.

4. Ext.A1 Settlement deed contained a clause that Saraswathy Bhai, her husband, and children who have been residing in the residential building in A schedule will have the right to live therein during the lifetime of the said persons.

5. As per the plaint allegations, the right of residence is available during the lifetime of Saraswathy Bhai and her husband only; they were occupying the plaint B schedule building consisting of 7 rooms during their lifetime in their status as licensees as per Ext.A1. Upon the death of Saraswathy Bhai and her husband, the said license became extinct, and the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain vacant possession of the plaint B schedule building. Though the defendants were demanded to vacate the premises as per Ext.A6 Lawyer Notice, they refused to comply with the demand, and hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for mandatory injunction to order the defendants to surrender vacant possession of the plaint B schedule building to the plaintiffs and for damages @ Rs.5000/- per month for the illegal use and occupation of the same with interest @ 12% per annum.

6. The defendants 2 & 3 filed joint Written Statement. Defendants 5 and 6 filed joint Written Statement. The 7th defendant filed a Written Statement. The defendants 1 and 8 filed joint Written Statement adopting the Written Statement filed by the 7th defendant. All of them opposed the suit prayers. In sum and substance, the contention of the defendants is that as per Ext.A1, the defendants have the right of residence in Plaint B scheduled building during their lifetime, and it would continue after the death of Saraswathy Bhai. They denied the existence of any license as per Ext.A1.

7. The Trial Court dismissed the suit as per judgment and Decree dated 10/03/2014 with costs, holding that the defendants have a life interest in the plaint B schedule building as per Ext.A1 as they are the children of Saraswathy Bhai and that the recitals in Ext.A1 will not amount to a license.

8. Though the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court as AS No.5/2015, the same was dismissed by judgment and decree dt 24/09/2014.

9. The present appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs is admitted on four substantial questions of law as per Order dated 02.02.2015.

10. In short, the question of law No.1 is whether the interest created in Ext.A1 settlement deed in favour of Saraswathy Bhai husband and children is repugnant to the interest created in favour of Krishna Prabhu and thus whether it is hit by S.11 of Transfer of Property Act. The questions of Law No.2,3 and 4 are formulated with respect to the interpretation of the recital in Ext.A1 Settlement deed. To have clarity and brevity, I reframed the substantial questions of law involved in this Regular Second Appeal as per Order dated 04/10/2024 as follows:

1. Whether the benefit created in favour of Saraswathy Bhai, her husband and children in Ext.A1 settlement deed for the residence in A schedule property therein is repugnant to the interest created in favour of Krishna Prabhu and whether it is hit by S.11 of the Tr