AMBILY Vs. GOPINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the sixth defendant. The trial court decreed the suit declaring the title of the plaintiff to the plaint schedule property, directing the sixth defendant to surrender possession of it to the plaintiff and restraining the defendant from trespassing into the property and from committing waste in it. The counter-claim of the sixth defendant to declare her title to the same property was dismissed. She filed two appeals, but both met dismissal. Hence she is in second appeal by filing the two appeals now under consideration.

(2.) The plaint schedule property which contains a house belonged to the first defendant. She got it under a settlement deed executed in her favour by her mother. The mother as the natural guardian of the first defendant executed Ext A1 sale deed on 30.5.1984 to sell the plaint schedule property to the defendant. He is the brother of the first plaintiff. The first defendant was a minor aged 15 years at the time of execution of Ext A1 by her mother. The document of sale was executed without obtaining the permission of the competent court to sell the minor's property. The first defendant filed a suit, O.S.323/1994, after attaining majority to get Ext A1 sale deed set aside. That suit was later withdrawn unconditionally by her. During the pendency of O.S.323/1994 one sale deed and thereafter two sale deeds came into existence in respect of the plaint schedule property. The first defendant executed Ext A2 sale deed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 who executed Ext A3 sale deed in favour of defendants 4 and 5 who executed Ext A4 sale deed in favour of the sixth defendant. The above are admitted facts.

(3.) Heard Sri.K.I.Mayankutty Mather, the learned counsel for the appellant/sixth defendant.