NARAYANAN KOCHU NANOO Vs. VELAYUDHAN RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is the appellant in the second appeal. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint was that the plaint schedule property was obtained by him and his mother in terms of Ext.A1 sale deed in the year 1962 and that the defendants, who hold the property on the south of the plaint schedule property, have trespassed into the plaint schedule property. The defendants contested the suit contending that the plaint schedule property is a part of their property. There was an earlier suit by the plaintiff against the defendants for injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. That suit was dismissed by the trial court holding that the defendants are in possession of the property and the decision therein has been confirmed in appeal. In the light of the decision in the earlier suit, the defendants have also contended that the decision in the earlier suit would operate as res judicata against the plaintiff in the present suit. The trial court found that the decision in the earlier suit will operate as res judicata and consequently, dismissed the suit and the said decision has been confirmed in appeal. As noted, the plaintiff is aggrieved by the said decisions of the courts below.

(2.) During the pendency of the second appeal, the appellant, the plaintiff, and the first respondent, the first defendant, died and their legal representatives have come on record in the array of parties in the second appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the respondents.