Back
Judges : K.A.MOHAMED SHAFI
Raman Pillai Krishnan Pillai - Appellant
Versus
Kumaran Parameswaran - Respondent
Case No : SA No 806 of 1989
Decided On : 12/06/2001
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: G. Unnikrishnan, A.K.Chinnan, B.Suresh Kumar, B.Radhakrishnan, Advocates. For the Respondent: R2 & R12 L. Mohanan, D.Sajeev, Advocates.
Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Sections 58 & 65 – Land Laws – Declaration of – Posession of – Findings of – Held, Even if the contention of the appellants that Ext. B4 copy of the written statement is not admissible in evidence under S. 65 of the Evidence Act is accepted, the same is admissible under S. 58 of the Evidence Act being the facts admitted by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs need not be proved. – It is clear that admissions made by the parties in judicial proceedings are admissible evidence under S. 58 of the Evidence Act. –It is clear that the contention of the respondents that the plaintiffs have no title to the plaint schedule property since there is no reference to the prior title deeds of MathevanPillaiNarayanaPillai in Exts. A1 and A2 and the thandaper register and mutation of name in the thandaper account will not confer title to the property is not sustainable since the plaintiffs are relying upon various documents produced by them in this case to establish the title of MathevanPillaiNarayanaPillai and there is no need for the absolute owner to refer to his title deeds in the document executed by him conveying his interest in the property in favour of his assignees or donees. – It is true that the plaintiffs can succeed in a suit based on title only by proving the case pleaded by them and not on the weakness of the defence case.
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.
The plaintiffs in O.S. No.14/1972 on the file of the Munsiff"s Court. Nayyattinkara are the appellants.
2. The suit originally filed by the plaintiffs was for permanent prohibitory injunction. Subsequently after the defendants filed written statement, the suit was amended claiming declaration of title and recovery of possession. Originally the suit was dismissed by the trial court by judgment dated 4.7.1974. In A.S. 438/74 preferred by the plaintiffs the appellate court set aside the decree and judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh disposal. Again the suit was dismissed by the trial court by judgment dated 30.11.1987. The plaintiffs again took up the matter in appeal and by judgment dated 16.1.1980 in A.S. 69/78 the appellate court set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court and remanded the suit for fresh diposal after giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs to take out a commission to identify the plaint schedule property. Subsequently the trial court by judgment dated 30.9. 1982 decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff 's title to and possession of the plaint schedule property except the house in which the 3rd defendant is residing and passed a decee for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property and committing any waste threrein.
3. The defendants challenged the decree and judgment before the appellate court in A.S.No. 181/83 and the plaintiffs preferred memorandum of cross-objection with regard to the findings of the trial court regarding the house situated in the property found in possession of the 3rd defendant. The appellate court by judgment dated 7.4.1989 modified the decree and judgment passed by the trial court to the extent that it declared the plaintiff. Title to and possession in respect of the 10cents marked as plot AR A5 A4, A3,10 cents marked as k K1 K2 KJ and building Nos.1 and 3 marked in Ext.C3 plan and set aside the decree in respect of the remaining portion of the plaint schedule property. The lower appellate court also dismissed the memeorandum of cross-objection filled by the plaintiffs. Hence the plaintiffs have preferred the above Second Appeal before this Court.
4. During the pendency of the second appeal the 1st appellant died and additional appellants 3 to 7are impleaded as his legal representatives as per order in C.M.P. 1541/98. The 3rd respondent died and additional respondents 4 to 8 are impleaded as his legal representatives as per order in C.M.P. 123/93. The 1st respondent died and additional respondents 9 to 14 are impleaded as his legal representatives as per order in C.M.P. 419/99.
5. The plaint schedule property consists of two items viz. 10cents comprised in Sy.No.661/6 and 1 acre and 12 cents comprised in Sy. No.661/5 of Perumkadavila Village in Neyyattinkara Taluk. According to the appellants the plaint schedule properties are portions of property belonged to Mathevan Pillai Narayana Pillai of Naduvila Veedu. The father of the 2nd plaintiff. He assigned 25 cents in Sy.No.661/5 with building etc. in favour of the plaintiffs are per Ext.A1 sale deed dated 29.1.1957. He gifted three items of properties, 10 cents comprised in Sy No. 661/5,10 cents in Sy. NO. 661/6 and 70 Cents in Sy.No.661/5 in favour of the plaintiffs as per Ext.A2 gift deed dated 24.4.1957. The aforesaid Mathevan Pillai Narayana Pillai had executed Ext.A11 mortage deed dated 22.4.1955 in respect of items 1 and 2 comprised in Ext.A2. He had also mortgaged 45cents out of item 3 comprised in Ext.A2 as per mortgage deed Ext.A8 dated 30.12.1950 and Ext.A10 deed of further charge dated 25.4.1952. At the time of the gift deed 25 cents was in the actual possession of the donor. The 1st plaintiff obtained assignment of Ext.A11 mortage as per Ext.A12 deed dated 9.4.1957. The plaintiffs obtained release of Exts.A8 and A10 mortgage and further charge as per Ext.A13 release deed dated 30.10.1957. T
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
