CHANDRAMATHY Vs. ARUNDHATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise from the common judgment rendered in four appeals A.S. Nos. 234/1994, 235/1994, 248/1994 and 250/1994 rendered by the learned District Judge, Thrissur, which, in turn arose from the common judgment and decree in two suits O.S. Nos. 872 of 1987 and 808 of 1988 rendered by the learned Sub Judge, Thrissur. The appeal S.A. No. 210 of 1999 is by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 872 of 1987 against the decree rendered in that suit, to the extent the relief canvassed for was declined by the courts below, which has been decreed only in part. The defendants in the above suit are the plaintiffs in the other suit O.S. No. 808 of 1988. They have preferred the other two appeals S.A. Nos. 251 of 1999 and 268 of 1999 to the extent aggrieved by the declining of the reliefs canvassed for in their suit, which too was decreed only in part by the courts below, and also, the decree granted in part to the plaintiffs in the connected suit. As parties in both suits are one and the same, and challenge is against the decision rendered under common judgment disposing the two suits, and later the appeals, for the sake of convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to as ranked in O.S. No. 872 of 1987 as 'plaintiff and 'defendants' unless it is otherwise found necessary for reference, to dispose these appeals.

(2.) The background on which suit claims were canvassed by the rival side in their respective suit, over which no dispute could be canvassed of deserve to be taken notice at the outset itself, and it can be summed up thus:

(3.) The backdrop of the factual scenario as presented above is of crucial importance in considering the claims canvassed by the rival parties over the suit property, which, no doubt, are based on divergent allegations conflicting to one another, to sustain the reliefs canvassed in their respective suit. Both the suits had been instituted much prior to Ext.B4 judgment rendered in the Ex.S.A. by this Court, but, only after Ext.B2 order passed by the execution court lifting the attachment made over the property allowing the claim petition of the defendants.