BEENA KANNAN Vs. ABDULLAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed by the defeated first defendant/first respondent in I.A.No.2677/2010 in O.S. No.224/2010 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam.

(2.) Plaint-A schedule property having an extent of 63 and 15/16 cents comprised in Sy.No.410/1 of Ernakulam Village, originally belonged to one Kochu Mammu having been purchased from Bava son of Sultan Pillai as per sale deed No.2054/1118 ME of Sub Registrar Office, Ernakulam. He was in possession and enjoyment of the same. After assignment, the survey number was sub divided and renumbered as 410/4 and 410/5 and the property having an extent of 60= cents and 2.450 cents (originally shown as two and half cents and later it was amended as 2.450 cents as per order in I.A. No.8546/2010) are now comprised in Sy.Nos.410/4 and 410/5 respectively. The brother-in-law of Kochumammu namely Kunju Bava was in possession of property on the southern side of plaint-A schedule property and after purchase of the property, Kochumammu demolished the compound wall separating his property and his brother-in-law's property on the southern side, inorder to make easy access for both of them, considering their relationship. Property of Kunju Bava and Kochumammu were lying contiguous to each other. After death of Kochumammu, his legal heirs, namely the plaintiff and 2nd defendant partitioned the property, as per partition deed number 3292/80 of SRO, Ernakulam and at that time, when the property was measured, they found 57.950 cents only (55.51/2 cents in Sy.No.410/4 and 2.45 cents in Sy.No.410/5) in their possession and they decided to partition that much extent of property and accordingly, the property was partitioned. Subsequently, the allottees have assigned the properties allotted to them to different persons, from whom first respondent had purchased the same and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same.

(3.) The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Kochumammu. After partition, it was revealed that two cents of property was left out, and it was in the possession of legal heirs of Kunju Bava and they have handed over that portion to the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant who are the legal heirs of Kochumammu and thereafter, they have been in possession of the same and this property was shown as plaint-B schedule property. The property obtained by first defendant is shown as plaint-C schedule property. The first defendant is having only right over 57.950 cents of land which alone was partitioned as per partition deed No.3292/1980 of SRO, Ernakulam, and obtained as per sale deed No.3303/2004. Plaintiffs and 2nd defendant were residing far away from the plaint-B schedule property. After purchasing plaint-C schedule property, first defendant was making construction and renovation work of their textile show room by name, Seemati Textiles. She also purchased the property lying on the western side of plaint-A schedule property covered by sale deed No.3303/2004.