JOSE PAUL Vs. PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who suffered a dismissal of the suit by way of decree of the first appellate court (District Court, Ernakulam) in A.S.No.312 of 2005, dated 27.6.2005, reversing the decree and judgment of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha in O.S.No.434 of 1997 came up with this appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that Ext.A5 cancellation deed executed by the first defendant subsequent to Ext.A4 settlement deed is valid and to set aside Ext.A4 settlement deed in favour of the defendants.

(2.) The property originally belonged to the father, who is defendant No.1 in the suit. He had executed Ext.A4 settlement deed in favour of defendant No.2 in the year 1996. After more or less one year, in the year 1997, Ext.A5 cancellation deed was executed by defendant No.1 cancelling Ext.A4 settlement deed of the year 1996 and executed another deed of conveyance, exhibited as A3, in favour of the plaintiff. Based on the said document, claiming title over the property the plaintiff came up with the suit.

(3.) The trial court decreed the suit holding that Ext.A5 cancellation deed is valid and granted a decree setting aside Ext.A4 settlement deed. It was reversed in appeal and the suit was ultimately dismissed by the first appellate court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the plaintiff came up with this second appeal.