WILLIAM BABU Vs. HELMA ROY ALIAS EMILY CARMEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Principal Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S.No.925/2001, followed by those of the Additional District Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S.No.121/2012, the defendants in the suit have come up with this second appeal.

(2.) The suit is one for declaration of title and possession, recovery of possession of plaint A and B schedule properties with mesne profits in case the defendants are found in possession of the same, and for perpetual injunction. A relief of mandatory injunction has also been sought for, for directing the defendants to vacate the plaint B schedule property.

(3.) The plaint A schedule property, having an extent of 28 cents, is in Survey No.2739/1/2 of the Kadakampally Village and the same originally belonged to late Macri D' Cruz and her husband Joseph D' Cruz. They settled the property in favour of their daughter Pauline James and her husband James as per Ext.A1 settlement deed No.2985/1122 ME. According to the plaintiff, Pauline James and her husband James had four children namely Mary James, Mercy James, Margaret and Mourin Presca, out of whom Margaret is no more. They are all settled in Singapore, after obtaining citizenship there. On the death of James, his half oodukur right in the property devolved on his wife Pauline and her aforesaid four children. It is the case of the plaintiff that in consideration of their natural love and affection towards the plaintiff, they decided to gift the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff, since they are settled in Singapore. They executed Ext.A2 power of attorney in favour of Roy Sanker who is the husband of the plaintiff, thereby empowering him to execute a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Thereafter, Roy Sankar executed Ext.A3 gift deed No.947/2000 in respect of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff on the strength of Ext.A2 power of attorney. According to the plaintiff, she took possession of the plaint A schedule property and the residential building described as plaint B schedule in it. Defendants are the direct brothers of the plaintiff. Presently, the 2nd defendant is residing in the plaint B schedule building as permitted by the plaintiff.