P.K.GOPI Vs. GOPINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2020 in A.S.No.46/2017 on the file of the Additional District Court- III, Mavelikara (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court') arising from the judgment and decree dated 16.7.2015 in O.S.No.252/2013 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikara (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court').

(2.) The above second appeal arises from a suit for recovery of possession and consequential permanent prohibitory injunction. The appellant and the respondents herein are the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 respectively in the suit. The parties are hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' and 'the defendant' according to their status in the trial court wherever the context so requires.

(3.) The suit was filed by the plaintiff alleging that the plaint schedule property having an area of 8 cents along with the eastern 10 cents originally belonged to the defendants 1 and 2. On 20.3.2000, after accepting the entire sale consideration for the entire area of 18 cents, the defendants 1 and 2 handed over possession of the entire property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per cent. It was agreed that a document would be executed later as and when demanded by the plaintiff since they availed of a bank loan by mortgaging the properties. While so, at the intervention of mediators, the defendants 1 and 2 executed Ext.A1 agreement on 11.9.2012 agreeing to execute the sale deed within 6 months admitting the receipt of entire sale consideration. Later, the defendants 1 and 2 unilaterally resiled from the contract which necessitated the filing of O.S.342/2012. At the intervention of mediators, the defendants 1 and 2 executed sale deed with respect to eastern 10 cents to which the plaintiff had to accept. Accordingly, on 11.3.2013, Ext.A2 sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 10 cents on which date the suit was withdrawn as not pressed. The original of Ext.A1 was taken back by the defendants 1 and 2. On 11.3.2013 itself, the defendants 1 and 2 executed Ext.A3 settlement deed in favour of the 3rd defendant. In spite of Ext.A3, the plaint schedule property was in the possession of the plaintiff. On 15.3.2013, the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants. Hence the suit was filed for recovery of possession and consequential injunction.