U.P.PADMARAJ Vs. MURALEEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the appellant before the Sub Court, Ottapalam (hereinafter referred to as, "the first appellate court") in AS No. 70 of 2013, which was filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2013 in OS No.411 of 2011 of the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam (hereinafter referred to as, "the trial court"). The respondents are the legal representatives of the original respondent in the first appeal and the plaintiff in the suit. The parties are hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" and "the defendant" according to their status in the trial court unless otherwise stated.

(2.) The suit is for declaration of title and consequential permanent prohibitory injunction. The plaint averments, in brief, are stated as herein below;

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement contending that the defendant is the son of Thankamma, who is Devaki Amma's daughter. The plaint schedule property belonged to Devaki Amma as per partition deed No. 60/1991. Devaki Amma had adopted Thankamma at a very young age as per the customary rites and was taking care of her as her daughter. When Thankamma had her own source of income, it was she, who was looking after Devaki Amma. She along with her husband, Padmanabhan Nair, had taken care of Devaki Amma. As per a registered Will bearing No.96/1991, Devaki Amma had bequeathed her properties to the parents of the appellant. After the death of the parents of the appellant, the appellant had taken care of Devaki Amma. On her death, on 14.03.2010, the Will came into existence. Till her death, Devaki Amma had not cancelled the Will. The defendant and the family were residing in the residential building in the plaint schedule property. When the appellant and his family were not in place, the plaintiff made an attempt to trespass into the residential building in the plaint schedule property.