UMMACHIKANNUMMAL MOHAMMED PATHUMMAL Vs. BHARGAVAN RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question for consideration in the second appeal is whether the estate of deceased Padmanabhan Narayanan was sufficiently and effectively represented in O. S. No. 217 of 1123. A few facts may be stated.

(2.) The suit properties belonged to the Arayan Vilakathu Valia Veedu, and these properties along with other were outstanding on a mortgage with Fadmanabhan Narayanan on a document of 1104. There were two additional charges also in his favour on the same properties. Narayanan executed a sub mortgage in favour of the 1st defendant, whose heirs are the other defendants, and also put him in possession of suit item 5. Subsequently, Narayanan purchased the properties from the mortgagors, agreeing that he would discharge the sub mortgage and put the mortgagors in possession of item 5 within a particular time. On the allegation that Narayanan did not comply with the condition, the mortgagors resold the properties to the 1st defendant.

(3.) The defendants contended, inter alia, that the will executed by Narayanan in 1121 was revoked by another will in 1124, under which the suit properties were bequeathed to Thankamma in her individual right. They also contended that the plaintiffs did not derive any title to the suit properties under the will and therefore the estate of Narayanan was fully and effectively represented by Thankamma in O. S. No. 217 of 1123. The farther contention of the defendants was that Bhargavan and Velappan were executors under the will and since they were also impleaded in O. S. No. 217 of 1123, the estate of Narayanan was again effectively represented. They also denied the allegation of fraud and collusion between the 1st defendant and Thankamma and her husband.