AYISHAKUTTY; EANIKUTTY; KATHIAMU; KUNHEERUTHUMMA; MYMONA Vs. CHAKKANTAKATH KAYYALIL SULAIKHA; ABUSALI; EMBICHIKOYA; SIDDIEEQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the legal representatives of the original deceased defendant. A decree for injunction was passed against the original defendant in that suit. It was confirmed by the appellate court. Three items of property are shown in the schedule to the plaint. Items 1 and 2 belonged to the plaintiff's father - Mohammed. After his death, there was a partition of the property left behind by Mohammed in the year 1980. Plaint items 1 and 2 were set apart to the share of the plaintiff. Item No.3, according to the plaintiff, was purchased by her and her sister from one Shankaran Namboodiri in 1976. The aforesaid property was also allotted to the share of the plaintiff. It was further contended that the plaintiff obtained purchase certificate in respect of these properties and that the defendants have no right over the property.

(2.) It is contended by the defendants that the properties are situated by the side of Arabian sea. There was a flood in the year 1924. All the properties including the disputed property were taken away by the sea.

(3.) PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A27 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 to B13 were marked. Commissioner's report and plan were marked as Exhibits C1 and C2.