SARASWATHY Vs. DANAPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise from the common judgment and decree of the Munsiff's Court, Varkala in O.S.Nos.369 of 2001 and 258 of 2002, confirmed by the Sub Court, Attingal in A.S.Nos.118 of 2004 and 117 of 2004, respectively.

(2.) THE 4th appellant in R.S.A.No.788 of 2012 (who is the 2nd appellant in R.S.A.No.789 of 2012) is the original owner of the suit property. He is the husband of the 1st appellant in both the appeals. He had executed a power of attorney (Ext.B11) in favour of the 1st appellant to negotiate and sell the suit property. Later, the 1st appellant and her husband are said to have executed Ext.B1, sale deed in favour of the respondent transferring the right, title, interest and possession of the husband of the 1st appellant in the suit property in favour of the respondent. It is also the contention of the respondent that the 1st appellant and her husband were permitted to reside in the building in the suit property on the strength of a rent deed executed in favour of the respondent and which was renewed after the period of the first rental arrangement (those rent deeds are Exts.B9 and B10). While so, the 1st appellant filed O.S.No.369 of 2001 for a decree for prohibitory injunction claiming that she is in possession and enjoyment of the property, her husband having purchased the same about seven years back. She claimed that her husband had availed a loan from the respondent and executed a document as security for its due repayment. The husband could not repay the interest. Thereon the respondent, it was alleged, attempted to trespass.

(3.) THE 1st appellant, along with her husband (2nd appellant in R.S.A.No.789 of 2012) filed O.S.No.258 of 2002 for a declaration that the title and possession of the suit property is with the 2nd appellant (in R.S.A.No.789 of 2012). They sought a finding that Ext.B1, sale deed No.4295 of 1999 in favour of the respondent is null and void and prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction. That suit was resisted by the respondent on the same grounds he stated in the written statement and counter claim in O.S.No.369 of 2001.