Kerala High Court
Rev. P.K. George vs Indian Evangilickal Lutheran Church on 26 June, 2012
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/5TH ASHADHA 1934
RSA.NO. 733 OF 2012 ()
---------------------------------
AS.38/2004 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA
OS.918/1996 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT,CHERTHALA
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
---------------------------------------------------------
REV. P.K. GEORGE,
RETIRED PASTOR,
LUTHERAN MISSION HOUSE,
CHERALA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 524.
BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
-----------------------------------------------------------
INDIAN EVANGILICKAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
TRUST ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY-CUM-TREASURER, MISS ALICE BRAUER,
D/O.RICHARD HENTRY BRAUER,
335A LUTHERAN MISSION COMPOUND,
K.P.ROAD, POST NAGARKOVIL - 629 001,
K.K. DISTRICT.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
R.S.A. No. 733 of 2012
====================================
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Defendant in O.S. No.918 of 1996 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Cherthala challenges the judgment and decree of that court as confirmed by the learned Sub Judge, Cherthala in A.S. No.38 of 2004.
2. Respondent, the Indian Evangilickal Lutheran Church Trust Association which is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 represented by its Secretary-cum- Treasurer sued the appellant for a decree for mandatory injunction, realization of arrears of licence fee and damages for use and occupation. Respondent claimed that as per Ext.A9, deed of licence dated 12.02.1971 appellant was permitted to occupy the schedule building in his capacity as Pastor, he retired on 23.04.1988 and in spite of giving reasonable time he has not vacated.
3. Appellant raised various contentions including competency of the Secretary-cum-Treasurer to represent the R.S.A. No. 733 of 2012 -: 2 :- respondent, verify and sign the pleadings, that he is in possession and enjoyment of the building under an agreement for sale and that he is entitled to the protection of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, "the Act"). All the contentions were found against by the trial court and a decree was granted in favour of the respondent. First appellate court has confirmed that judgment and decree. Hence this Second Appeal.
4. In the Second Appeal it is contended that the suit is not properly constituted, that courts below have not adverted to the evidence regarding the agreement for sale in favour of appellant and that he is entitled to the benefits under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Learned counsel has asserted the above contentions.
5. That the building belongs to the respondent is not very much in dispute and proved by Exts.A2 and A3. Exhibit A4 shows that respondent is paying revenue for the suit property.
6. That the appellant was permitted to occupy the building is proved by Ext.A9, and the evidence of P.W.2, witness to that document. When examined as D.W.1, appellant R.S.A. No. 733 of 2012 -: 3 :- admitted that he has written and signed Ext.A9 in favour of the respondent.
7. So far as the contention regarding alleged agreement for sale is concerned, courts below held that there is no acceptable evidence. On the other hand, Exts.A2, A5 and A6 disproved that case of the appellant. Those are receipts issued to the appellant by the respondent for reimbursement of property tax paid by the appellant.
8. What remained is only regarding competency of the Secretary-cum-Treasurer to represent the respondent, verify and sign the pleadings. By Ext.A17, the Signatory to the plaint was appointed as Treasurer of the respondent. Exhibit A1 is the letter from the Chairman of the respondent giving additional charge of Secretary to the Treasurer. By Ext.A15 she was authorized to sign the plaint (to evict the appellant). Exhibit A8 is a letter from the appellant to the Signatory of the plaint in her capacity as Secretary-cum-Treasurer. Appellant as D.W1 stated that the Secretary-cum-Treasurer is competent to represent the respondent.
R.S.A. No. 733 of 2012 -: 4 :-
9. The claim that appellant is entitled to the protection under the Act is also not established in any of the courts below.
Having heard learned counsel and gone through the judgments under challenge I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal requiring decision by this Court.
Second Appeal is dismissed.
All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv