THOMAS Vs. A A HENRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 45 of 1990 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam against the decree and judgment dated 19-10-1992. Respondents 1 to 3 herein as plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree for setting aside Exts. A17 and A18 sale deeds assigning the first defendant s ownership over the plaint schedule property and conveying his rights therein to defendants 2 and 3 and to order defendants 2 and 3 to assign the right, title interest and possession obtained by them over the plaint schedule property by the above sale deeds to any one of the plaintiffs or to the plaintiffs jointly as required by them by executing a registered document and pay the plaintiffs the rent due and received from the shop rooms by defendants 2 and 3 with 12% future interest, failing which to allow the plaintiffs to deposit the consideration in court and get the document of assignment executed in their favour through court, for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for other ancillary reliefs.

(2.) By the judgment under appeal, the court below set aside Exts. A17 and A18 sale deeds and decreed the suit. By the decree, defendants 1 to 3 were directed to reconvey the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiffs or to any one of them as required by the plaintiffs by executing a registered document at the expense of the plaintiffs on receipt of consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. It was also ordered that the plaintiffs will be entitled to the rent received by defendants 2 and 3 from the shop rooms with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum till realization, excluding the building taxes paid from 13-12-1989, from defendants 1 to 3 and from their assets. It was further directed that if defendants 1 to 3 fail to comply with the above directions within three months from the date of the decree, the plaintiffs will be allowed to get the document of assignment executed in their favour or in favour of any one of them and will be allowed to recover possession of the property through court. The plaintiffs were also allowed to realize the costs of the suit from defendants 1 to 5 and the 6th defendant was entitled to realize cots from the plaintiffs.

(3.) Parties to this appeal are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as in the suit for the sake of convenience. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal in brief as per the pleading in this case are as follows: