Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The defendant No.1 filed his separate written statement contending that he was the tenant in respect of Items 1 to 5 of A schedule and he had filed an application for occupancy rights in his individual capacity and therefore contended that the plaintiff was not entitled for any share in the suit schedule property. He also contended that the Land Tribunal having once granted the occupancy rights, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide as to whether the grant made in his favour enured to the joint family. He contended that he had constructed a house in his property by raising a loan from the Bank and had renovated the house by expending substantial sums of money. He also contended that he had taken the suit schedule properties on chalageni basis and had requested his mother to join him when he executed chalageni chit in favour of the land lady. Therefore he contended that his mother had only half right in the chalageni property and the remaining half right belonged to him and that the half right of the mother had devolved upon her three children namely the defendants 1 to 3 and that the defendant No. 1 had 4/6th share in the chalageni right of the mother. He further contended that the defendant no.2 had claimed occupancy right in respect of the last item of the suit property and that the occupancy right was granted in her name and therefore the remaining properties stood in the name of defendant No.1. He thus contended that the plaintiff and other defendants had no right over the suit properties and thus sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. The 2nd defendant filed a separate written statement contending that the suit properties were obtained by her mother Smt. Thumbe Shedthy. At the time of executing chalageni chit, the land lady had insisted that a male member of the family should join in executing the chalageni chit. Accordingly the defendant No. 1 joined her mother and executed the Chalageni chit. Further she stated that Thumbe Shedthy was alive at the time of filing Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal. However on account of her old age, she allowed the defendant No. 1 to file the Form No. 7. She thus contended that the properties involved in the suit filed by Smt. Narasu Shedthy had been originally enjoyed by Smt. Nagamma Shedthy who is the mother of Smt. Thumbe Shedthy and therefore Smt. Thumbe hedthy had got right over the properties enjoyed by Smt. Nagamma Shedthy and thus the defendant no.2 had per capita share in the properties enjoyed by her mother Smt. Nagamma Shedthy. She further contended that the properties in question were obtained in her individual capacity and same were not inherited by her from Smt. Nagamma Shedthy. Therefore the properties in question were not included in the suit filed by Smt. Narasu Shedthy and others. She contended that the plaintiff and other children had a per capita share in the plaint schedule properties and further stated that she has no objection for decreeing the suit.

13. This appeal is listed today for admission and I have heard the Counsel for the defendant no.1/ appellants, plaintiff/respondent. I have perused the records of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and their Judgments and the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum.

14. The prime contention of the legal representatives of the defendant No.1 is that the defendant No. 1 had executed the chalageni chit in favour of the land lady and had included the name of Thumbe Shedthy in the chalageni chit out of sheer respect. They contended that it was the defendant No.1 who was cultivating the suit properties on chalageni basis and that he had filed Form No. 7 as a tenant in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is also contended that the defendant No. 2 had also filed a similar application in respect of the suit schedule properties and that the Land Tribunal recognized the cultivation of the defendant No. 1 as well as the defendant No. 2 and accordingly conferred occupancy rights in respect of suit items 1 to 5 in favour of defendant No. 1 and suit item No. 6 in favour of the defendant No. 2.

16. On the other hand the learned counsel for the plaintiff and other defendants contended that the chalageni chit as per Ex.P1 and P2 was executed in the year 1963 and the chalageni chit disclosed the names of defendant No.1 and his mother Thumbe Shedthy. They also contended that the evidence of D.W.3 (daughter of the landlady) disclosed in categorical terms that during the lifetime of her mother, the lease rentals were paid by Smt. Thumbe Shedthy to the mother of DW3 and after her death, the lease rentals were paid to D.W.3. They contended that the lease rentals paid to the land lady as per Ex.P6 to P24 indicated that the same were paid by Thumbe Shedthy. Thus the plaintiff contended that it cannot be claimed by the defendant No.1 that the suit schedule properties were granted to him in recognition of his sole tenancy in respect of the suit schedule items.