IDAVOOR SREEDHARMA SASTHA Vs. RAVEENDRA BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.82 of 2006 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara is aggrieved by the reversal of the decree he got by the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara in A.S.No.83 of 2007 to the extent it concerned item No.2 of the plaint schedule.

(2.) THE plaint schedule concerns two items. According to the appellant, the said properties formed part of property which belonged to one Anantha Narayana Iyyer who executed a Will in favor of the mother of one Sankar. On the death of the legatee, the property devolved on the father of the said Sankar and on the father dying intestate, it devolved on Sankar. The said Sankar gifted the suit property to the appellant, a trust as per Ext.A1, dated

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that the finding of the first appellate court to the extent it concerned item No.2 of the plaint schedule is not correct. The learned counsel has contended that item No.2 of the plaint schedule is identified by the Advocate Commissioner in the report and plan submitted. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that under provision of the Travancore Registration Act, Ext.A3 was not required to be compulsorily registered and that at any rate, even if it is assumed that Ext.A3 was compulsorily registrable, the said document could be admitted and looked into for collateral purposes such as a decision on possession of item No.2 and its nature. According to the learned counsel, the first appellate court was not right in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court to the extent it concerned item No.2.