AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Defendant in O.S.No.328 of 2006 of the court of learned Munsiff, Changanacherry has suffered a decree for eviction from the plaint schedule, a portable shed which learned Additional District Judge, Kottayam has confirmed in A.S.No.202 of 2009. First respondent filed the suit for eviction of appellant from the shed in question with rent arrears claiming that the said shed is situated in survey No.166/15 belonging to first respondent as per Ext.A3, assignment deed No.1689 of 1979. That shed was given on rent to the appellant on 31-12-1979. Later, rent was enhanced to Rs.250/- per month. Respondent claimed that the rental arrangement expired by 31-08-2006 and thereon she issued notice terminating lease with effect from 01-10-2006. Hence, suit for eviction with rent arrears.
Appellant denied that respondent has title over property or the shed situated thereon. He also denied that he is a rentee under the respondent. Execution of Ext.A1, receipt was denied. Appellant claimed that the shed was constructed by his brother, Ali Rawther on PWD puramboke about 40 years back. Alternatively, he claimed that he has prescribed right by open, continuous, uninterepted possession of the property and shed for several years.
Pending the suit, respondents 2 to 4 who are assignees under the first respondent were impleaded as additional plaintiffs 2 to 4.
Trial court accepted the case of first respondent and granted a decree. That was confirmed by first appellate court.
It is contended by the learned counsel that due execution of Ext.A1 is not proved. It is also contended that Ext.C1 report of the FSL is not sufficient to show that Ext.A1 was executed by the appellant. It is contended that Ext.B3 would show that first respondent has no title over the property where the shed is situated. The further contention is that trial court has not even referred to Ext.B3. Appellant has replied to the notice but the first appellant court proceeded under the impression that appellant has not replied to the notice.
Ext.A3 is the assignment deed in favour of first respondent concerning a larger extent of property including the property where according to first respondent, the shed is situated. Appellant contended that the shed was constructed by his brother, Ali Rawther in PWD puramboke. PW3, the Assistant Engineer of PWD has given evidence that all encroaches in puramboke land in the locality were evicted. In Ext.B3, notice issued by the Thahsildar it is stated that appellant is occupying puramboke land. First appellate court referred to Ext.B3 and stated that though such a notice was issued, there is no evidence to show that the Thahsildar had taken any follow up action. First appellate court also referred to the evidence of PW3 to show that all encroaches of poramboke land were evicted and hence, had the shed in question been put up in poramboke land, that would also have been removed as stated by PW3.
Ext.A1, receipt is allegedly executed by the appellant in favour of respondent. Since execution of that document was disputed, it was sent to the expert (FSL, Thiruvananthapuram) with the admitted signature of appellant. Ext.C1 is the report. In Ext.C1, the expert has opined that the person who wrote the red enclosed standard writings stamped and marked as Exts A1, A2 and S1 to S60 probably also wrote the red enclosed questioned signature similarly stamped and marked Q1 ( I have been given a copy of Ext.C1). The expert stated that all characteristics found in the questioned item were not similarly exemplified in the available standard signatures. The standard signatures during the relevant year were not supplied for comparing. In the circumstances, the expert opined with the available materials that it can be concluded that the person who wrote standard signatures marked Exts. A1, A2 and S1 to S60 probably also wrote the questioned signature marked Q1.
I must notice that expert evidence is only opinion evidence. Assuming that in Ext.C1 there is no categoric finding that the disputed signature in Ext.A1 is that of the appellant, finding of expert is that in all probability, appellant has signed Ext.A1. There is the evidence of first respondent as PW1 that appellant executed Ext.A1. That evidence of first respondent gets support from Ext.C1. In the circumstances, courts below are right in holding that Ext.A1 was executed by the appellant.
I stated about the finding of first appellate court with reference to the evidence of PW3 and Ext.B3. Assuming that as contended by the appellant the shed is situated on poramboke land, that does not justify appellant refusing to vacate when it is found that appellant has taken the shed on rent from the first respondent. He is bound to vacate on demand by the first respondent. On hearing learned counsel and going through the judgments under challenge, I do not find any substantial question of law involved which requires decision by this Court.
Second appeal fails. It is dismissed.