KARTHIYANIAMMA Vs. C P KOCHUNARAYANA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned in Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 9346-9347 of 1996.

(2.) Leave granted in all these special leave petitions. By consent of contesting parties who appear through their counsel, these appeals were taken up for final disposal forthwith. Before we proceed to deal with these appeals we may mention that the original Appellant 2 in Civil arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26163 of 1995 has died pending proceeding but her son Rajesh, Appellant 8 is already on record and he, therefore, now shall be described as heir of Rathi Devi as representing her interest along with his interest. Similarly, in the cross-appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 9346- 9347 of 1996, Rathi Devi having expired pending proceedings will now be represented by Respondent 8, Rajesh, her son who will represent her estate also along with his own estate. He though described as minor aged 17 years represented through his father in the appeal memo is now aged 27 years as informed to us. So, he shall be now described as major and his guardian will stand discharged.

(3.) So far as the merits of these appeals are concerned, in Civil arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26163 of 1995, the appellants are the original plaintiffs who filed a suit for declaration of title, injunction and possession of the properties mentioned in the respective schedules of the plaint. The case of the appellants in the cross-appeals is that the brother of Plaintiff I had filed the aforesaid suit. We may refer to the contesting parties hereinafter as plaintiffs and defendants in the latter part of this order. The plaintiffs' case is that their mother, Lakshmikutty Amma executed a gift deed on 15/5/1956 in favour of Plaintiff 1 giving rights over the entire plaints A and B properties to the donee and consequently the contesting defendants had no interest in the said properties and therefore, the aforesaid reliefs were prayed for.