LEELA AND OTHERS Vs. VASU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Non-suited plaintiffs in an action for declaration, partition and prohibitory injunction are the appellants. Suit, as it originally stood, was for a permanent prohibitory injunction relief alone. It was subsequently amended by incorporating a prayer for partition. It was further amended by adding a prayer for a declaration that Ext. B-3 gift deed is a fraudulent, void and sham document. Could all these contentions be legally raised together is an aspect worthy to be considered. It is also pertinent to note that when the plaint was amended as above, additional 3rd defendant was impleaded, as he had purchased the property from the original 1st defendant pending litigation. He is the contesting respondent in this appeal.

(2.) Heard Sri S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent.

(3.) Brief facts: 1st appellant is the mother of appellants 2 and Deceased 1st defendant was the father-in-law of the 1st plaintiff/1st appellant. Respondents 1, 4 and 5 are the children of deceased 1st defendant and the siblings of the 1st appellant's husband, deceased Sreedharan. 2nd respondent (additional 3rd defendant) is the purchaser pendente lite. 3rd respondent is the wife of 1st defendant.