A corporation can authorize a principal officer to file suit, and procedural irregularities that do not affect the merits of the case should not defeat a valid claim.

JUDGMENT

This R.S.A has been directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.6/2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Sulthan Batheri which in turn arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.89 of 2004 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kalpetta.

2. Appellants are the defendants. Suit originally was filed for permanent injunction and subsequently amended for recovery possession. (Parties would hereafter be referred as per their status before the trial court.) Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Kochi and having estates in various places including the one at Arapetta, Mooppainadu in Kottappadi Village in Vythiri Taluk and is represented by the Manager of Arapetta estate who is authorised by the company to file the suit. Plaint A schedule property absolutely belongs to the company having acquired the same as per assignment deed No.2805/1923 of S.R.O. Chinkalpet, Madras. The property comprises tea plantations and various crops, the muster office, Manager Bungalow, office building, labour lane, staff quarters etc and other ancillary and interspersed area. First defendant is the worker of the plaintiff company and the other defendants are her husband and children. Defendants are residing in the labour lane room of the plaintiff company. Behind the labour lane, there is a stretch of property belonging to the plaintiff with various types of trees. On 04.02.2004, there was an attempt on the part of the defendants to trespass into the rear side of the labour lane room by clearing the bushes and putting up a structure and the attempted trespass area is described as B schedule which is a part of A schedule property. Again on 25/3/2004 and 28/03/2004, defendants made attempt to trespass into the plaint schedule property for which they have no manner of right. Hence the suit has been filed for restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint B schedule and putting up any structures or committing any acts of waste and also from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff. On the basis of written statement filed, the suit was amended pleading that if at all the plaintiff failed to prove possession over B schedule property, alternatively claim for recovery of possession with mesne profit.

3. Defendants filed written statement contending that the person who verified the plaint and petition is not the Manager or the principal officer of the plaintiff company and hence he has no locus standi to file the suit. It is admitted that first defendant is a worker and other defendants are her husband and children. The ownership of the plaintiff over plaint A schedule property is denied. Attempt of trespass from the part of the defendants is also denied. Plaint A and B schedule property is not identifiable.

25 cents of property including residential building inspected by the Commissioner belongs to the second defendant. They are residing in the house bearing No.8/39 of Muppainadu panchayat for the last so many years. The hut in the property fell down in the June, 2003. Second defendant is bed ridden for the last six months. Property held by the second defendant is having cultivation of coconut, arecanut, coffee, pepper etc having age of more than 30 years. Property is lying with definite boundaries.

4. During the pendency of the suit, second defendant died and his legal heirs were impleaded as supplemental defendants 5 to 9. They adopted the contentions in the written statement of defendants 1 to 4.

5. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked from the side of the plaintiff. Exts.B1 to B3 and B4 series were marked from the side of the defendants. Exts.C1 to C4 and Exts.X1 to X5 were also marked.

6. On evaluating the facts and circumstances and evidence, the trial court decreed the suit ordering recovery of possession of B schedule, against which appeal was filed and the first appellate court on reappreci