RAMAN ITTIYATHI Vs. PAPPY BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three points raised in this second appeal by defendants 2 and 3 and the legal representatives of deceased first defendant are whether the decree of the appellate court is liable to be reversed and the suit dismissed for the reasons that the suit is barred under O.2 R.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and S.34 of the Specific Relief Act and the title of the plaintiffs is lost by adverse possession and if not whether the appellants are entitled to claim and get value of improvements.

(2.) The three items in the plaint schedule belonged to deceased Raman Kunhan. Third plaintiff and third defendant are his sisters and defendants 1 and 2 are their brothers. They had also a brother Krishnan who died unmarried and issue less. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the children of third plaintiff. On 26-3-1963, Kunhan settled the suit properties in favour of plaintiffs and Krishnan by Ext. B1 reserving life estate with him. Kunhan died on 10-2-1970. Before that, on 3-6-1964, he cancelled Ext. B1 by executing Ext. B2. Then on 4-8-1966, he sold Item No. 1 to one Sankara Pillai under Ext. B3. The assignee in turn sold Item No. 1 to third defendant under Ext. B4 on 22-12-1969.

(3.) on 8-4-1970, plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 57 of 1970 against the defendants for declaration of title and injunction regarding these three items. Defendants claimed title and possession in themselves and supported Exts. B2 to B4 on the ground that Ext. B1 is only a will. Trial Court decreed the suit in its entirety. Appellate court remanded the suit after confirming the decree in respect of declaration of title. In C. M. Appeal, this court set aside the remand order and disposed of the suit finally by confirming the decree regarding declaration of title and dismissing the suit in other respects on the ground that defendants are in possession. Receiver in possession of the properties was directed to hand over possession and income to the defendants.