THOMMAN PARAKKAL Vs. MADHAVAN ARAKKAPARAMBIL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for cancellation of a deed of assignment of sale and recovery of possession of property comprised therein with past and future mense profits.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS 1 and 2 and defendants 2 and 3 are brothers; and P.W. 1 is their father. They are governed by Hindu Law. In 1100, when plaintiff 2 was unborn and plaintiff 1 and defendants 2 and 3 were minors, P.W. 1 executed Ext. IV sale deed in favour of his wife Thulasi and his three sons for the suit properties in this case and certain other properties. By the terms of the sale deed the properties were given to plaintiff 1 and defendants 1 and 3 and the sons that might be born in future of P.W. 1 and his wife Thulasi.

(3.) THREE points were urged here by the appellant's counsel: They were: (i) Ext. XXVIII was supported by necessity and consideration binding on plaintiffs 1 and 2; (ii) plaintiff 2 has no right to the plaint property as he was unborn at the time of the execution of Ext. XXVIII; and (iii) the right of plaintiff 1 to get Ext. XXVIII set aside is barred by limitation under Art. 34, Cochin Limitation Act, corresponding to Art. 44, Indian Limitation Act.