SONALAL, S/O. CHEERAMBATH MANIKUTTY Vs. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is for review of judgment dated 23.03.2012 in RSA No. 68 of 2006. That appeal arose from the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 10 of 2004 of the Ist Additional District Court, Thrissur.

(2.) THE petitioner/appellant sued for a decree for prohibitory injunction as if he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property - 31 cents. He claimed that he had executed Ext.B1, assignment deed dated 10.06.1998 in favour of the respondent as security for the due repayment of loan of Rs.50,000.00 he had availed from the respondent and that notwithstanding the assignment deed, he continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are errors apparent on the face of the record and other sufficient reasons to review the judgment. The learned counsel points out that Ext.B1, assignment deed is dated 10.06.1998 while even before that, petitioner had entered into Ext.A1, agreement dated 16.07.1997 for exchange of the suit property with the property of PW.4 and pursuant to that, petitioner was in possession of property of PW.4. It is further pointed out that the fact that the respondent did not get possession of the property is admitted by him. The further ground pointed out is that the sale consideration stated in Ext.B1 for 31 cents is only for Rs.12,500.00. These circumstances were not considered by this court while deciding this second appeal, it is contended.