Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Ex.F.A.No.31/12 & O.P(C).No.2209/12 schedule properties since 12.4.1963 as per Ext.A12 lease deed executed by him in favour of Mallu. The contention is that he derived tenancy right from Mallu and Mallu, later assigned his intermediary right to his son Kitta @ Krishnan as per Ext.A3 assignment deed dated 7.2.1964. Thereafter, the claim petitioner has been paying rent to Kitta @ Krishnan. The claim petitioner further contended that he had erected thatched shed, later renovated it into a tiled house and constructed motor shed, installed pump set etc. It is also contended that the claimant is not a party in the ceiling proceedings and therefore, the decision is not binding on him. According to the claim petitioner no portion of the petition schedule property held by him as tenant since 1963 can be delivered to the decree holders in the execution proceedings in O.S.No.337/1989. The claim petitioner is claiming title by virtue of Ext.A12 lease deed. He contended that the petition schedule property was leased to Mallu by jenmi Ayya Pattar and the tenant Mallu assigned his tenancy right to the claim petitioner. If the petition schedule property was leased to Mallu by jenmi and if the petition schedule properties were assigned to the claim petitioner by virtue of Ext.A12 lease deed, ::9::
15. Respondents 17 to 19 are the legal heirs of Kitta @ Krishnan. Though they are respondents 17 to 19 in the claim petition, they have no case that the claim petitioner has got assignment of tenancy right from their grandfather Mallu and that the claim petitioner is a tenant of the property. The very same persons contended in the ceiling proceedings that the properties are in the possession and enjoyment of the jenmies. Admitting ::24::
Ex.F.A.No.31/12 & O.P(C).No.2209/12 the respondents' right, title and interest, respondent No.17 entered into an agreement with the members of the jenmi family for the purchase of the very same properties. The said suit namely, O.S.No.267/89 was dismissed and the matter was taken up in appeal before this Court and the appeal was also dismissed on 7.3.2007. The said respondents did not raise any contention in this claim case probably due to their stand in the ceiling proceedings and in O.S.No.267/89. When the claimant was examined as PW1, he testified before the court that all the documents in the claim petition, namely, Exts.A1 to A11 are in fact produced by Ratnababu, who is the 17th respondent. When examined he also testified that there was no necessity to take back the original deeds (Exts.A1(a) and A2(a)) from the court. He also testified that Ratnababu and Mohanbabu (respondents 17 & 18) were present in the trial court during the course of hearing. Before this Court also the 18th respondent was present on all days when the case was heard. All the facts and circumstances would lead to the conclusion as contended by the respondents that the claim petition was set up by the legal heirs of Kitta @ Krishnan, namely, respondents 17 to 19. The evidence of the claim ::25::