KOCHU THRESSIA JOSEPH Vs. SEBASTIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties in both these appeals are the same. S.A. No. 619 of 1993 is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 118 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, North Paravur which is preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 466 of 1985 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, North Paravur. S.A. No. 632 of 1993 is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 43 of 1988 on the Sub Court, North Paravur which is preferred against the judgment and decree in in O.S. No. 426 of 1985 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, North Paravur.

(2.) FOR the sake of the convenience, the appellant can be referred as the plaintiff and the respondents can be referred as the defendants. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 466 of 1985 for recovery of possession with mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property and 40 cents lying adjacent to it are the properties mentioned in the settlement deed executed by the parents of plaintiff and defendants in the year 1959. At the time of execution of the settlement deed, the plaintiff has not been married. The property having an extent of 60 cents was set apart to the share of plaintiff. It is stated in the settlement deed that the marriage of the plaintiff should be conducted by her father during his life time and in case he could not conduct the marriage, the marriage should be conducted by the mother. It is further stated that in the settlement deed that after the death of the parents, the property would vest with the plaintiff. In connection with the marriage of the plaintiff, her father sold 40 cents out of 60 cents. The plaintiff's father died on 18.7.1968 and mother died on 18.7.1984. After their death, the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the plaintiff schedule property. The defendants are now in the possession of the plaint schedule property. When the plaintiff had requested for surrender of possession, they filed O.S. No. 426 of 1985 for declaration and injunction.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, the trial court raised 3 issues. Exts. A1, A2 and B1 were marked. The trial court decreed O.S. No. 466 of 1985, against which the defendants filed A.S. No. 118 of 1988 before the Principal Sub Court, North Paravur. The appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and allowed the appeal. Against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 466 of 1985, the defendants filed A.S. No. 43 of 1988 and the appellate court modified the judgment declaring the defendant's right to get the sale deed executed in respect of the B schedule property and the first defendant is directed to deposit the sale consideration of Rs. 400/ - with notice to the plaintiff within one month from the date of judgment, against which these two appeals are filed by the plaintiff. The substantial questions of law formulated in the Second Appeals are: