LAKSHMI SULOCHANA Vs. REBELLO RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in O.S.No.274 of 1981 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Trivandrum, are the appellants. The suit was for compensation.

(2.) Ist defendant is the wife and the other defendants are children of deceased Banjamin Thankappan. He executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 17 cents of land in Sy.No.197/5 of Kottukal Village on 14-4-1975, representing that he was absolute owner of the property and that it was free from encumbrance. At the time of execution of the sale deed, C.A.No.250 of 1973 filed by one Pala Pachan against late Thankappan before the Land Tribunal, Neyyattinkara was pending, in respect of the plaint schedule property which was known to the plaintiff. It appears, Pachan filed C.R.P. No. 1723 of 1978 on 17-9-1980 against the order in O.A. which was disposed of holding that Pachan was a cultivating tenant in respect of the property. Plaintiff was not a party to the said proceedings and he came to know about the proceedings only when the order of injunction was served on him in the suit filed by Pachan as O.S.No.583 of 1980 in the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. The consideration recited in the document of sale was Rs.5,000/-. Plaintiff claimed that the market value of the property in the year 1980 in the locality was more than Rs.1,000/- per cent. He limited his claim for damages to Rs.15,300/-. Demands were made to the defendants by the plaintiff for payment of the amount but defendants did not settle the claim and hence the suit.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendants they alleged that the plaintiff was aware of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and it was not true to say that he came to know about the proceedings only when he received the order of injunction in O.S.No.583 of 1980. They also averred that the plaintiff was still in possession of the property, that Thankappan was competent to execute the sale deed, that since the plaintiff was in possession he had not suffered any loss and that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit.