K. R. SUBITHA Vs. PLORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.265 of 2002 are the appellants. Challenge is to the dismissal of the suit and its affirmation in A.S.No.132 of 2014.

(2.) The suit was laid by the plaintiffs claiming that the suit property originally belonged to Podikutty Nadar, who died in the year 1990, leaving behind nine daughters and three sons. It is also claimed by the sons that the daughters were given in marriage prior to 1989 and they have no right over the property. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property is the ancestral property of Podikutty Nadar and after the death of Podikutty Nadar and his brother Manickam, the suit property was allotted to the third defendant in a family arrangement. The plaintiffs being the heirs of the third defendant are entitled to the share in the property. On the above allegations, the plaintiffs sought for 4/5th share in the suit property.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the first defendant, who is the purchaser of the property from 3rd defendant. The first defendant would contend that the suit property is a self-acquired property of third defendant. He has obtained the same under a Will executed by his father Podikutty Nadar. According to the first defendant, the third defendant, along with his mother, conveyed the property to the second defendant under a sale deed, dated 10.11.1994. The first defendant purchased the property from the second defendant on 25.11.1998. According to the first defendant, the suit itself is an abuse process of Court. The second defendant would also point out that after the sale, the third defendant had set up one Sulochanan Nair to file two suits in O.S.No.494 of 1998 and O.S.No.517 of 1998, for specific performance and injunction, on the basis of a fraudulent agreement. Those two suits were dismissed on 04.10.2004 and 20.09.2004 respectively. The third defendant himself had filed a suit in O.S.No.485 of 1998, for declaration of title and recovery of possession, which also came to be dismissed on 11.11.2003. The mother of the third defendant Chellammal had filed another Suit in O.S.No.276 of 1999 claiming partition, which also came to be dismissed on 12.12.2003. Having failed to his attempts to some how get the sale deed set aside, the third defendant has now set up his wife and children to file the above suit.