KAALLAKANDY PARAMBATH SUKUMARAN Vs. SATHIRATHNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Second Appeal by the first defendant in O.S. No.53 of 1992 before the Sub Court, Thalassery, two questions of law arise for consideration. They are

(2.) IT is admitted that plaint A, B and C schedule properties were obtained by Madhavi as per Ext.A1 dated 31.12.1965. Madhavi had three children, namely the first plaintiff, Sadanandan and Sivadasan. Sadanandan died on 15.9.1991. He had executed a Will, which is produced as Ext.A8. Sivadasan is also no more and his rights have devolved on plaintiffs 2 to 7. Plaint B and C schedule properties are paddy fields. Plaint A schedule property is a paramba with a house therein and lies within well demarcated boundaries. IT has an extent of 14 cents. The house was put up by Madhavi. Plaint B and C schedule properties had been assigned by Madhavi to the first defendant as per Ext.A5 dated 26.11.1980. However, Madhavi retained plaint A schedule property and she was residing therein till her death. Thereafter the plaintiffs have been residing in the property. The defendants have no manner of right over plaint A schedule property. But when the plaintiffs sought to have plaint A schedule property partitioned, they came to know that the first defendant is trying to raise certain claims on the basis of Ext.A5 and therefore they laid the suit for declaration and injunction.

(3.) ON the basis of the above pleadings necessary issues were raised by the trial court. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A8 from the side of the plaintiffs. The defendants had D.Ws.1 and 2 examined and Exts.B1 to B14 series marked. Ext.C1 is the rough sketch and Ext.C2 is the commission report.