PARAYIL SUDHAKARAN Vs. PARAMBATH MUKUNDAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The appellant in the second appeal is the review petitioner. The facts relevant for deciding the Review Petition are the following:

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner contended that the findings rendered by this court that the suit properties and the properties involved in the earlier suits namely O.S.Nos. 356/1946, 396/1982 and 88/1988 are one and the same is incorrect. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the suit properties comprise under re-survey No. 487/1, corresponding to old survey No. 831/1 and the plaintiffs have right only over the properties in re-survey No. 487/4 corresponding to old survey No. 829/4 in terms of their title deeds. The said stand was attempted to be demonstrated by the learned Senior Counsel by referring to Ext.X1 series documents. The learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out that the said fact is evident from a comparison of the property description contained in Ext.A1 Marupat and and the property description contained in the title deeds of the defendant. According to the learned Senior Counsel, while there are lots of improvements in the property covered by Ext.A1 Marupat, it has come out that there are absolutely no improvements in the suit properties.