Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19205
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.BHAVADASAN, J
ST.PETER'S CHURCH – Appellant
Versus
JOSEY – Respondent
SA 897 2001
SRI.K.L.JOSEPH, SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE, SRI.T.O.XAVIER, SRI.K.M.SUDHEENDRAN
Possession is pivotal in property disputes involving injunctions, superseding the need for formal title documents.
Headnote:
Property - Ownership - C.R.P. No.24/99, Kerala Land Reforms Act - The court emphasized possession as the key criterion in determining the right to relief in injunction suits, disregarding the necessity of formal title documents.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, a church and its trustees, claimed ownership and possession of a property disputed by the defendants, who contended their own rights based on lease and prior ownership. The church sought an injunction against obstructive actions by the defendants.
Issues: Whether the church's possession of the property was acknowledged by the defendants and if the lack of formal title documents justifies non-suiting the plaintiffs in a suit for injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that possession alone is sufficient for granting relief in injunction suits, and prior rulings on tenancy claimed by the defendants invalidated their possession arguments.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed; defendants are injuncted from interfering with the church's property.
J U D G M E N T
Plaintiffs who have been non-suited by the courts below in O.S No.116/1995 are the appellants herein.
2. First plaintiff is the church represented by its Vicar and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are its trustees. First Plaintiff claimed that they were the owners in possession and enjoyment of plaint A schedule property which consists of 80 cents of property comprised in Sy. No.1287 of Kumbalangi village. According to them, 1.940 cents of land was purchased by the 1st defendant as per sale deed No.1004/92 of Mattanchery Sub Registry Office. Initially in that place, a person by named Rocky had put up a structure on the basis of an agreement of lease executed between the plaintiff Church and said Rocky. First defendant later got assignment of the rights of Rocky and continued to be in possession. 1.940 cents of land and the building therein was sold to the first defendant by the church. The church claimed that they are in possession of the balance extent of property which is shown as plaint B schedule property and the property of the defendant is shown as plaint A schedule property. It is stated that defendants have no manner of right over plaint B schedule property owned and possessed by the church. Defendants are conducting a tea shop in the building situated in the A schedule. When the church wanted to put up a compound wall, for doing so, when they had to cut down certain trees standing in the property owned and possessed by the church, defendants obstructed the same. Hence the suit.
3. Defendants resisted the suit. They disputed title of the church. According to them, in the year 1945, one Panakkal Rocky had constructed a shed in the plaint A schedule property. On 14.6.1957 that was taken over by the 2nd defendant. Second defendant had conducted a tea shop therein and on 5.4.1991, the 3rd defendant purchased the shop and continued the business. Later, the property where the building is situated was purchased by the 1st defendant and later transferred the same to the 3rd defendant as per document No.1004/1992 of Kochi Sub Registry. Thus third defendant claimed to be the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 1.940 cents of property and building therein. Defendants contended that that plaintiffs had no absolute possession and enjoyment of plaint B schedule property.
4. The defendants also claimed that in addition to
1.940 cents of land, they are in possession of another 8 cents also by virtue of a lease in their favour. They claimed to be cultivating tenants entitled to benefits under the Kerala Land Reforms Act . Therefore, they contended that plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
5. The trial court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 1 to PW3 and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked from the side of the plaintiffs. Defendants had examined DW1 and DW2 and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. Exts. C1 to C2 (a)
are the commission report and plan.
6. The trial court went to consider title to the property and found that church is unable to produce any documents showing title over plaint A schedule property. The court below also felt that since the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title, they cannot given a decree.
Based on these findings, the suit was dismissed.
7. Plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal as A.S.
No.17/2000 before the Sub Court, Kochi. The lower appellate court was also of the view that since there were no documents to show that the Church owned the property and they were in possession of the same, the plaintiff has to fail. According to the lower appellate court as the Church could not produce the gift deed in respect of the property, they cannot succeed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
8. Challenging the judgment and decree of the courts below, the appeal has been filed before this Court. The following questions of law have been formulated in the appeal.
"(a). The defendants were claiming possession of Eight cents of land on the strength of alleged lease from the p
