LEELAVATHY AMMA Vs. VARGHESE MATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs - appellants Mr. T. N. Subramania Iyer learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. G. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel who continued the arguments of Mr. T. N. Subramania Iyer attacked the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mavelikara dismissing a claim made for declaration of title & of their being in possession of the properties in O. S. 123/56.

(2.) The plaintiffs 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the children of one Krishnan Asari and the 8th plaintiff is their mother being the widow of Krishnan Asari. Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 are the children of the 6th plaintiff and his wife Parvathi who died in or about 1114 and the 9th plaintiff is the son of the 4th plaintiffs. All the plaintiffs had a common case that they want a declaration of their title to the suit property to be established and also their claim being in possession of the properties being affirmed.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs appears to be more or less one and indivisible namely that the transaction evidenced by Ext. D 4 dated 2-3-1104 is devoid of consideration and a decree passed on the basis of such a document Ext. D 4 in O. S. 516/1112 Munsiffs Court, Chengannur is also not binding and valid so far as the plaintiffs are concerned. The further claim was that though the auction purchasers claimed to have obtained delivery of the properties in execution of the decree in O. S. 516/1112, nevertheless actual possession of the properties has not passed from them and that they have also in any event even on the assumption that the auction purchaser obtained any title on the basis of the decree in the said suit have completed title to the properties by adverse possession.