N VISWANATHAN Vs. K AMMINI,KALEECKALAYYATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit is one for setting aside a sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff is the mother, the first defendant is her son and the second defendant is the assignee. The property originally belonged to the husband of the plaintiff. The same was bequeathed in favour of the first defendant reserving a life interest in favour of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff alleges that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is sham and intended to harm her.

(2.) THE court below initially restrained the defendants from entering into the plaint schedule property or making any alteration therein in I.A. No. 6464/2008. Thereafter the second defendant sought permission to carry out repairs in the building in I.A. No. 1873/2008. The trial court passed an order on consent permitting the second defendant to carry out repairs. This was directed to be done under the strict supervision of the Advocate Commissioner.

(3.) THE plaintiff has conceded before the trial court that the repairs can be carried out under the supervision of the Advocate Commissioner. He even offered to meet one half of the commission batta in this regard. It was no longer open to the plaintiff to impugn this consent order in an appeal. The lower appellate court erred in setting at naught the order of the trial court passed in that regard.