BENNY Vs. ANTO PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the revision is with regard to the decree passed in O. S. No. 1573 of 1997, which is a suit brought by the present first respondent under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act. The said decree directs that the defendants in the suit, including the 5th defendant, who is the present revision petitioner, should surrender vacant possession of the plaint A schedule property to the plaintiff within a month from the date of the decree.

(2.) Facts of the case. The plaintiff had executed Ext. B3 Sale Deed in favour of the first defendant on 4.10.1996. The plaintiff's contention is that eventhough the document stated that possession was given to the transferee / defendant, actually no such possession passed and that the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the property. While so, a creditor of the plaintiff brought O. S. No. 158 of 1997 against the plaintiff and sought attachment of the present plaint schedule property. The first defendant, who was the transferee under Ext. B3, was not impleaded in the said suit. The court allowed attachment before judgment.

(3.) In the meantime, the present revision petitioner, who is the 5th defendant in the suit involved in this revision, got assignment of the rights of the first defendant as per document executed on 18.11.1997 and on that basis staked a claim under O.21 R.58 of the CPC before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, which was dealing with O. S. No. 158 of 1997. The Court, after due enquiry, upheld the claim raised by the present revision petitioner. Thereafter the present plaintiff filed O. S. No. 320 of 1999 before the aforesaid Sub Court seeking cancellation of Ext. B3 Sale Deed, which had been executed in favour of the first defendant. The said suit is still pending. It was in the above factual scenario that the Trial Court considered the contention with regard to dispossession on 1.11.1997 raised by the plaintiff.