MANIYAN NADAR AND ORS. Vs. HARIKUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common substantial questions of law arising in the appeals are the following:

(2.) Facts, in nut shell: O.S.No.338 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad is a suit for declaration that Ext.A2 sale deed executed by the 3rd defendant, who is the sister of the quondam minor plaintiff, in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is void and also to allow the plaintiff to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from defendants 1 and 2. The suit was decreed. Against the judgment and decree, the defendants 1 and 2 preferred A.S.No.635 of 1990 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Learned Additional District Judge after a detailed consideration, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Against that judgment and decree, defendants 1 and 2 have come up in R.S.A.No.626 of 2009.

(3.) After putting the decree in O.S.No.338 of 1987 to execution and also after taking delivery of the property by the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 preferred O.S.No.197 of 1999 before the learned Principal Munsiff, Nedumangad. In that suit, the plaintiff in O.S.No.338 of 1987 is the 1st defendant and his sister (3rd defendant in the earlier suit) is the 2nd defendant. This suit is one for recovery of possession of B schedule property in Ext.A2 document impugned in the former suit.