Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows : The parties in the suit belong to Agathi Island of Lakshadweep and the properties are situate in the said Island. The suit properties consist of six items of immovable properties including a Mosque and a residential building in item No. 1. According to the averments in the plaint, these properties belonged in jenmam to one Ahammed Koya (hereinafter referred to as Ahammed Koya No. I) of Vadakilapura. The said Ahammed Koya No. 1 married Ayshabee, who belonged to Aliyankunhumada. They had a daughter by name Kunhubee (No. I). According to the plaintiffs, Ahammed Koya gifted these properties to Kunhubee and the properties are Thinkalazhcha properties of Kunhubee. By subsequent devolution, these properties vested in Hassankutty Haji as his Thinkalazhcha properties. After his death, the properties devolved on his shariat heir, i.e., his daughter Ponthinoda Ummubee. The plaintiffs are (he children of the said Ponthinoda Ummubee through their father Cheriya Koya. On the death of their mother Ummubee, the plaintiffs claimed the entirety of the properties as having devolved on them as her shariat heir. The case of the plaintiffs is that even during the lifetime of Hassankutty Haji and after his death, the properties were being managed by their father Cheriya Koya, who is also a grand nephew and power of holder of Hassankutty Haji. So long as Cheriya Koya was alive, these properties were in their possession and enjoyment. Cheriya Koya died in 1951. Thereafter, his brothers Muhammed Koya andAhammed Koyall attempted to trespass and take possession of the properties illegally. Thus, the mother of the plaintiffs, Ummubee filed a suit as C.S. No. 48 of 1952 against Ahammed Koya II, Muhammed Koya and Kunhubee II. As per the direction of the Court, on the death of Ummubee, plaintiffs 1 to 3 along with their brother Attakoya filed another suit, C.S. No. 95 of 1959 against Ahammed Koya II and Kunhubee II. While that suit was pending, a compromise was brought into existence fraudulently and col-lusively by the second defendant and others.

3. The suit was resisted by the first defendant contending that the properties are not Thinkalazhcha properties in the hands of Hassankutty Haji. According to him, it was their thavazhy Velliyazhcha properties in the hands of Hassankutty Haji and it devolved on his Marumakkathayee heirs through his sister Beekuttybee. The properties devolved on the daughter of Beekuttybee, viz., Attabee and her children Cheriya Koya, Muhammed Koya and Ahammed Koya II and Kunhubee II. Kunhubee II died without any heirs and as Cheriya Koya and Mohammed Koya also died, Ahammed Koya II was the last surviving member of Vadakilapura. Hence, Ahammed Koya II is entitled to these properties and it is his Thinkalazhcha properties. The first defendant is the eldest son of Ahammed Koya II. He was living along with his wife with Ahammed Koya II. While so, Ahammed Koya II orally gifted the entire plaint schedule properties to him and he is therefore entitled to the whole of the properties. While so, the properties were taken possession of from him by receiver and on the cancellation of the appointment of receiver, the receiver handed over possession of the properties to other defendants on the basis of the Razi. He had also filed a suit before the Amen's Court, which was tried along with the suit filed by the plaintiffs and according to him, the entire properties belong to him under the oral gift of his father.

4. Defendants 4, 5 and 7 also resisted the suit. They contended that Vadakilapura is a thavazhi of Aliyankunhimada and that the plaint schedule properties are the tarwad properties in the possession of thavazhi and therefore, Hassankutty Haji has no alienable right in the properties and the properties after the death of Hasankutty Haji devolved on his Velliyazhcha heirs, i.e., Cheriya Koya, Ahammed Koya II, Mohammed Koya and Kunhubee II. This Kunhubee died issueless and the thavazhi became extinct and on the death of Ahammed KoyaJI as he was the last surviving member, the entire properties reverted back to the original tarwad, i.e., Aliyankunhimada tarwad. According to the defendants, the compromise is valid and the plaintiffs are not entitled to challenge the same. Further, they raised a contention that the rights of the plaintiffs, if any, are lost by adverse possession.

5. After raising the necessary issues, both oral and documentary evidences were adduced. The trial Court found that those properties belong to Ahammed Koya I and there is no community of interest in properties between the Vadakilapura and Aliyankunhimada and as such the properties are not Aliyankunhimada properties which have come into the hands of Vadakilapura and therefore the Aliyankunhimada peoples have no reversionary right over the plaint schedule properties on the extinction of Vadakilapura tarwad. The trial Court found that the properties were not the Thinkalazhcha properties of Hassankutty Haji, but they are Velliyazhcha properties of Vadakilapura thavazhi. It is also found that the plaintiffs have no title through their mother and they are not entitled to recovery of possession. The Court held that the Razi, Ext. A19, is void and not binding. It found that the properties being thavazhi Velliyazhcha properties of Vadakilapura, it devolved equally on Cheriya Koya, Muhammed Koya and Ahammed Koya II as their Thinkalazhcha properties on the extinction of Vadakilapura thavazhi and the plaintiffs as the descendants of Cheriya Koya are entitled to 1/3 share in the properties. But it was found that the plaintiffs could not be given a decree, because all the parties were not before the court and therefore the plaintiff was directed to file a separate suit. The case of the first defendant and the contention based on oral gift and exclusive right over the properties on Ahammed Koya II were repelled. It is against the above judgment and decree that these appeals are filed.