PATHUKUTTY Vs. AISAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in a suit for partition are the appellants. The suit was originally filed by the first plaintiff Aleema Umma. It was contended by the original first plaintiff that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to his brother Moosa and he assigned the property to the plaintiff. Two suits were filed as O.S. 277/1977 and O.S. 258/1977 by Aleema Umma against deceased Alathel Muhammed who is the husband of the first respondent. Muhammed mentioned therein who was the defendant in those suits filed a suit against the deceased first plaintiff Aleema Umma as O.S. 339/1977. All those three suits were tried together. The two suits filed by the first plaintiff Aleema Umma were dismissed holding that the first plaintiff could not prove her exclusive possession of the property claimed by her. Similarly, O.S.339/1977 was also dismissed holding that Muhammed the defendant therein could not prove his exclusive right over the property.

(2.) Ext.A3 is the common judgment passed in the earlier three suits, O.S. Nos. 258/77, 277/77 and 339/1977. As stated earlier, the two suits filed by Aleema Umma mentioned above were dismissed holding that she could not prove exclusive possession over the suit property. Similarly, the third suit filed by Muhammed contending that he was in exclusive possession of the property was also dismissed holding that he could not prove exclusive possession of the property. Aleema Umma filed two appeals challenging the dismissal of her two suits. Those two appeals were also dismissed. No appeal was filed by Muhammed as against the judgment and decree in O.S. 339/1977 and hence, the judgment and decree passed in that suit became final. Challenging the common judgment passed against the judgment and decree in O.S. 277/1977 and O.S. 258/197, Second Appeals were filed as S.A. 317/1983 and 330/1983. Ext. A6 is the common judgment passed by this Court in those two Second Appeals. In Ext.A6 it was observed by this Court:

(3.) During the pendency of the present suit the original plaintiff died. Her assignees were brought on record as supplemental plaintiffs. It was held by the trial Court that simply because there was an observation made by this Court in Ext.A6 judgment that the parties can pursue their remedy for partition, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were held to have proved their title to the property. Since no document could be produced by the plaintiff to show the title of the deceased first plaintiff, the suit was dismissed. The appellate court concurred with that view.