SAM DAVID Vs. MONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1 There were two suits: The first is O.S.No.528 of 1989 and the other is O.S.No.304 of 1999, separated by a decade from the earlier suit. They were laid by the same plaintiffs, substantially against the same set of defendants. O.S.528 of 1989 was laid for bare injunction, and the second suit in O.S.304 of 1999 was laid for declaration of title over 'A' Schedule property, and for recovery of possession of 'B' Schedule property.

(2.) 1 Before introducing the pleadings, it is necessary to introduce the suit properties. The plaintiffs claim that they are the title holders of 22.5 ares equivalent to about 55.60 cents in R.S.Nos.403/12 and 403/13 of Kollengodu Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. This property is described as the suit property in O.S.No.528 of 1989 (filed for bare injunction) and 'A' Schedule property in O.S.No.304 of 1999, the suit for recovery of property. Out of this, a small portion of the 'A' schedule property, measuring about 6 cents on north west is described as 'B' Schedule property in O.S.No.304 of 1999. This is the property in relation to which redemption is sought. Both the Courts below have decreed the suits but after excluding the 'B' Schedule property (north-western 6 cents out of 55.60 cents), and this 6 cents is the bone of contention in these appeals.

(3.) For narrative convenience, the parties would be referred to by their description in O.S.No.304 of 1999.