The court affirmed fixity of tenure under a historical lease but mandated remand for proof of title regarding the 'B' schedule property, emphasizing the necessity of establishing property identity and ownership.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

1. Two suits and one counter claim were tried jointly, which resulted in a decree against the appellants. O.S. Nos. 90 of 2009 and 118 of 2011 were filed by the Sree Velliyamattom Bhagavathy Deity, represented by the Velliyamattom Bhagavathy Devaswom Trust and its Trustees claiming recovery of possession in respect of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties in O.S No. 90 of 2009, and also a consequential prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the properties scheduled in the plaint in O.S No. 118 of 2011. ‘A’ schedule property comprises 566.67 acres, which is the subject matter of a lease of the year 1906 (Deed No. 1206/1081 Malayalam Era). ‘B’ schedule to the plaint consists of 2.5 acres of land in Re.Survey No.149/4 (Old Survey No.944/1A, 946/1) of Valliyamattom Village. According to the plaintiff, the land originally belongs to a temple called Chuzhalikkattu Bhagavathy within ‘A’ Schedule property covered by the lease deed dated 17.04.1907. The 566.67 acres comprising ‘A’ schedule property was originally in the hands of the plaintiff temple. It is alleged that the defendants have destroyed the entire temple in the ‘B’ schedule property and planted the areas with rubber. According to the plaintiff, the original lease was in favour of one R.D Fenton, assignment deed in favour of Gompartz and K.G.Windle on 31.10.1907. Later, on 16.10.1909, the property was assigned in favour of the Thodupuzha Rubber Company which later went into liquidation. The company winding up by way of liquidation entered into a deed of indenture dated 28.03.1934, assigning the property to Velliyamattom Rubber Company. In the meanwhile, O.S. No.2 of 1103 M.E. was pending before the Paravur District Court questioning the execution of Ext.A1 lease by the Trustee Godan Sankaran Namboothiripad. On 07.11.1112 M.E. the suit was compromised. According to the plaintiff, the lease expired also on 17.04.2005, and the defendants are remaining as tenants at sufferance, and they have not sought for consent of the lessors continuing. Hence, the plaintiff contended that the defendants have no right to continue in the property. The suit was thus filed in the representative capacity of the plaintiff as well as the defendants as the suit consisted of numerous persons including trustees and various land owners. The defendants resisted the suit contending that by successive assignment, the 1^st defendant acquired his own right by virtue of deed of indenture dated 12.04.1946, and subsequent arrangement of lease, the right devolved upon defendants 2 to 6 and 8 to 11 and presently only defendants 3, 5 and 10 are in possession of the portion of the plaint schedule properties. The compromise in O.S. No.2 of 1103 M.E. before the Paravur District Court recognized the right of the predecessor of the defendants for fixity of tenure, and has further contended that no temple exists as alleged by the plaintiff, Trust.

2. Pending the suit, the claim of fixity of tenure was referred to the Land Tribunal, Thodupuzha under Section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963, and by order dated 07.03.2018, the reference was answered in favour of the defendants. Accordingly, the reference was returned. Based on the answer given by the land tribunal on 07.03.2018, the trial court concluded that the claim for recovery of possession for ‘A’ schedule property cannot be sustained. As regards the ‘B’ schedule property, the trial court found that inasmuch as the