SAROJAM Vs. REGHUVARA PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 86 of 2000 on the file of the First Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara, filed this Second Appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the trial court and the First Appellate Court setting aside the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 1053 of 1996 of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara on the ground of fraud and collusion.

(2.) Mr. Reghuvara Panicker and his daughter Sreedevi were the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 86 of 2000 and they are respondents 1 and 2 in this Second Appeal. The husband of the 1st appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3, Mr. Duriyodhanan was the 1st defendant, and the 5th defendant Sudharma in the said suit was the wife of Reghuvara Panicker, the 1st respondent herein. The 3rd and 4th respondents in this appeal were the 1st and 5th defendants in O.S. 86 of 2000.

(3.) The earlier suit--O.S. No. 1053 of 1996, was filed by the 1st appellant herein representing her minor daughters against Sudharma, wife of Reghuvara Panicker as 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant was Duriyodanan, who was the husband of the plaintiff. In the said suit, it is alleged that the 2nd defendant, Duriyodanan, executed sale deed No. 1756/94 dtd. 15/6/1994 in favour of the 1st defendant Sudharma with respect to 25 cents of property owned by his minor daughters without the leave of the court and that the 2nd defendant is a drunkard and has abandoned the plaintiffs and was leading a wayward life without taking care of his minor children and that he is living separately in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is also alleged that the parties are Hindus and therefore, the sale deed executed by the father with respect to the property of the minor children without obtaining leave of the court is void and the said suit was decreed ex parte and thereby, the title of appellants 2 and 3 herein was declared over 25 cents of property by ignoring the sale deed executed by their father, Mr. Duriyodhanan.