MANICKAN Vs. KANAKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The Suit was one for declaration of title, recovery of possession and other reliefs. First respondent plaintiff alleged that plaint schedule properties belonged to Kuppachi, her meternal grand mother. After her death the properties devolved on her only daughter Thanka. The first appellant incurred debts. For discharging the said debt ornaments worth 25 sovereigns belonging to the first respondent was sold by her father Velankutty for Rs. 12 000/-. Velankutty could not return the money. Therefore, her mother sold the plaint schedule properties to the first respondent as per Ext. A2 dated 1-2-1983. She obtained possession after the said sale deed. On 14-5-1983 when the first respondent went to the plaint schedule properties for cultivation along with her two other brothers, appellants obstructed them. The mother of the first respondent filed a complaint before the Kollengode Police Station and when first appellant was summoned to the police station, he told them that he has obtained purchase certificate for the plaint schedule properties. The purchase certificate is vitiated by fraud and collusion, No notice was issued to the land owner and no enquiry was conducted. It was obtained by influencing the authorities. Appellants trespassed into the property and harvested the crops raised by the first respondent On the said allegation she prayed for a decree for declaration of her title, to set aside Ext. B5 purchase certificate and to recover possession with mesne profits.

(2.) First appellant contended that, he was in possession of the property as tenant of Kuppachi. On the strength of the said tenancy, he obtained purchase certificate for the plaint schedule properties. Therefore, property did not devolve on Thanka. Ext. A2 sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent is incompetent. The same is not supported by consideration. The allegation that money was borrowed for discharging the debt incurred by him is false and is denied. The debt was incurred for the marriage expenses of the 1st respondent and others. Ext. A2 sale deed relied on by the first respondent is not valid. As per Ext. B3 agreement he agreed to sell the properties to the second appellant and has put him in possession of the properties. The said fact is known to the first respondent. The allegations against the validity of Ext. B5 are denied.

(3.) The second appellant supported the 1st appellant. She contended, the purchase certificate was issued on a joint application filed by the 1st appellant and Kuppachi after observing the prescribed procedure. He has paid an advance of Rs. 15,000/- to the first appellant as per the agreement to soil the properties and possession was handed over to him.