YAHU Vs. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit for declaration of title and prohibitory injunction against trespass was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiffs are in appeal.

(2.) The plaint schedule property is described as an extent of 45.241 cents out of 79 cents. Ext.X1=Ext.B1 Partition Deed No.1320 of 1917 was executed between one Kunjimoidu and his children. Parties Nos.10 and 11 therein were one Mammu and Rayinkutty. In the partition, they were allotted item Nos.21 and 22 therein. According to the plaintiff, Rayinkutty died as a bachelor. His property devolved on his father Kunjimoidu and his brother Mammu. Subsequently, as per Ext.A4 document No.1372 of 1936, Kunjimoidu and Mammu sold the properties of Mammu and Rayinkutty as obtained under the partition, in favour of one Athankutty. Subsequently, as per Ext.A3 Sale Deed, Athankutty conveyed the property to one Saidalavi and his brother Muhammed. Thereafter, as per Ext.A2 Release Deed No.752 of 1951, Muhammed released his rights in favour of Saidalavi. Later, on the death of Saidalavi, his legal heirs conveyed 45.241 cents (the plaint schedule) out of the total extent of 79 cents in favour of the plaintiffs as per Ext.A1 Sale Deed No.338 of 2008. On the very same date, the remaining extent of property was released by the legal heirs in favour of one among them, namely Moideen, as per document No.339 of 2008. The suit is filed on the allegation that, the defendants are claiming right over the property on the strength of sale deeds allegedly executed by the legal heirs of Mammu.

(3.) The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff. It was contended that, Ext.A4 Sale Deed claimed to have been executed by Kunjimoidu and Mammu is a fabricated one. It was claimed that the property allotted to Mammu under Ext.X1=Ext.B1 Partition Deed was conveyed to the 1st defendant by the legal heirs of Mammu.