ANTO AND ORS Vs. KOCHUTHRESSIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit in O.S No.215/2011 is one for declaration of title and for a consequential injunction restraining defendant Nos.6,7 and 8 from paying the rent to defendant Nos.1 to 5. There is also a prayer for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property leased out. The plaintiff claimed title under Ext.A1 sale deed executed by one Kochuthressia who was the mother of one Devassy. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are some of the children of Devassy and defendant No.5 is his widow. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 contended that the property belonged to Devassy only and it was purchased Benami in the name of Kochuthressia.

(2.) Defendant Nos. 6 to 10, 12 and 14 to 21 were set exparte in the suit and a decree passed. The prayer for recovery of possession alone was declined on the premise that the property falls within the notified area under the Rent Control Act. Subsequently defendant Nos.9,10,14,15,16,17,18 and 20 filed I.A Nos. 1876/2012 and 1877/2012. I.A No.1876/2012 was filed to condone the delay and I.A No.1877/2012 was filed to set aside the exparte decree in the suit. The aforesaid applications were allowed by the trial court against which C.R.P No.511/2013 has been filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The fourth defendant alone filed an appeal against the decree in A.S No.141/2012 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Irinjalakuda. The applicants in I.A Nos.1876/2012 and 1877/2012 contended that they knew about the decree only on receipt of notice in A.S No.141/2011. The delay in seeking to set aside the exparte decree is only 48 days which is not inordinate.