A coowner can lease their share in property, binding other coowners, while individual rights remain intact unless contested during the lease. Marriage and streedhanam do not extinguish inheritance rights established at death.

1 The Judgment of the court was delivered by Janaki Amma, J. - The defeated first defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of the ground floor of a shop building owned by one Joseph, the deceased father of the plaintiff, is the appellant. Defendants 2 to 11 in the suit are stated to be the other legal representatives of Joseph who, according to the plaintiff, were not prepared to join her in the institution of the suit. Going by the case put forward by the plaintiff, for some time after the death of her father heirs were experiencing financial strain. They some how managed to reconstruct the old shop building. The ground floor of the building was let to a tenant and the upstair rooms were being used for the Varghesons Watch Company owned by the deceased which business was continued by his heirs after his death. As years rolled on, the space available in the upstairs became insufficient for the business and it was decided that after the tenant of the ground floor surrendered, that portion should also be used for the business. The tenant of the ground floor vacated some time in March, 1970. Defendants 2 to 4 and 7 however, let out the shop building to the first defendant without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and some other heirs in March, 1970. Ext. A-2, the rent deed was executed by the first defendant alone and as such invalid in law. Though the term of the lease expired on 18th March 1973, the first defendant did not surrender the property. Alleging that the lease was not binding on the heirs of Joseph, the plaintiff sought recovery of possession of the building.

2 Defendants 2 to 11 were ex parte. The first defendant contested the suit. He denied that there was surrender of the building preceding the lease in his favour. According to the first defendant, the property was rented in 1963 to a firm of which he was a partner. After the dissolution of the firm, the first defendant attorned to the heirs of Joseph and executed Ext. A-2 rent deed on 18th March 1970 agreeing to pay an enhanced rent of Rs. 300. The rent deed was taken by defendants 2 to 10 on behalf of the plaintiff also. The plaintiff was aware of the lease arrangement and did not object to it. Rent was being collected for and on behalf of the plaintiff and was being utilised for discharging debts due from the coowners. The first defendant also contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the property in view of Act 2 of 1965 without an order of eviction by the Rent Control Court.

3 The Subordinate Judge, Trichur held that the first defendant failed to prove that the lease was an act of prudent management and, therefore, it was not binding on the plaintiff. According to the learned Sub Judge, the first defendant had no right in the building after the expiry of the period fixed under the lease deed. The court held that the Rent Control Act had no application in the case. The contention raised by the first defendant during trial that the plaintiff had been paid streedhanam and as such not entitled to a share in the property of the deceased, was not accepted by the Court. The suit was accordingly decreed and the first defendant was directed to surrender possession of the property to the plaintiff with future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2,400 per annum and costs. This decree is challenged in the appeal.

4 It is the common case that the property originally belonged to Joseph, the father of the plaintiff under an assignment Ext. A-1, dated 7th October 1955 and that the building that was in existence was demolished after his death and a two storeyed one was put up. The upstair portion is being used for the watch business of the coowners. on 20th March 1962, one Johny took on lease the plaint schedule property as per Ext. B-3 from the legal representatives of Joseph fixing a period of 10 years. After the property was surrendered, the first defendant executed on 18th March 1970 a registered rent deed, copy of which is Ext. A-2, f