P.P. USSAN KOYA Vs. K. BEEKUTTI UMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Legal heirs of the original plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction are the appellants. Defendants are the respondents.

(2.) Relevant pleadings are thus: Plaint A schedule property belonged to the original plaintiff. Certain additions and reconstructions were made to plaint A schedule house during 1976 as per the plan and licence approved by the Corporation of Calicut. Kitchen portion of plaint A schedule house was built in excess of the approved plan projecting into the land belonging to one Saidali, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants. Entire construction was completed in 1976. Plaint B schedule is the portion of kitchen that projected into the land belonging to the defendants. In 1976, Saidali and the original plaintiff's husband, Ussankoya, entered into an agreement for sale of plaint B schedule property. This agreement could not be performed by both the parties due to various reasons. In 1985 Saidali filed O.S.No.328 of 1985 claiming recovery of plaint B schedule property from Ussankoya. In that suit, Ussankoya contended that plaint B schedule is part of plaint A schedule which was in the possession of his wife, the original plaintiff. It was also contended that the original plaintiff was a necessary party to the suit. But, no steps were taken to implead her. The suit was ultimately dismissed. Thereafter, the defendants (the legal heirs of Saidali) filed an appeal before the appellate court. Even though that appeal was allowed, no step was taken to execute the decree. According to the original plaintiff, the defendants have lost their right, title and interest over plaint B schedule property which lies contiguous to plaint A schedule house. A consequential relief of injunction is also sought against the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment.

(3.) Defendants/Respondents filed a joint written statement contending that plaint B schedule property never belonged to the original plaintiff. By virtue of the decree in the earlier suit, the original plaintiff and her husband are barred from contending that plaint B schedule is included in their documents. The case of adverse possession and limitation pleaded in the plaint are denied.