CHANDRAKUMAR Vs. NARAYANAN BAHULEYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in OS No. 882 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the First Additional Munsiff, Neyyattinkara, who succeeded in the suit, but lost in AS No. 1151 of 1994, Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, is the appellant.

(2.) The suit was filed by the respondents for declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule property, for injunction and for fixation of boundary. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule property belonged to Raghava Panicker as per Ext. A2 partition deed of the year 1950. Raghava Panicker and his wife Ammukutty executed Ext. A1 settlement deed dated 06/02/1974 in favour of the plaintiffs, who are respectively their son - in - law and daughter. The plaint schedule property is item No.2 in Ext. A1 settlement deed. The property of the defendant lies on the southern side of the plaint schedule property. In Ext. A1, the extent of the property is shown as 5.67 Ares. In the plaint schedule, the extent was shown as 17.5 cents which was later amended as 18.5 cents. The plaintiffs alleged that on 27/10/1991, the defendant tried to demolish the southern boundary and to trespass upon the plaint schedule property.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant, he contended that Raghava Panicker and Ammukutty did not get right in the plaint schedule property and therefore, they had no right to transfer the property to the plaintiffs. Ext. A1 settlement deed was not executed by Raghava Panicker and Ammukutty. It was executed fraudulently and signatures of the executants were forged. The plaintiffs and their predecessors did not have title and possession over 17.5 cents. The re - survey was not over and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to file a suit. The property of the defendant on the southern side is a residential compound. The plaint schedule property is a Nilam and it was filled up and coconut trees were planned. The extent of 17.5 cents would take in a portion of the defendant's property. There is an Anjili tree in the defendant's property. The defendant alleged that the suit was filed to see that the plaintiffs get the Anjili tree.