LAWRANCE (DIED) Vs. KARUNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.140 of 1995 which was pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.

(2.) O.S.No.140 of 1995 had been filed by two plaintiffs viz, Karunakaran and Dayanandan against two defendants viz., Lawrance and Eesurathinam. They had filed a suit, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the plaint "A" schedule property viz., 25 cents of land and trees on the northern side portion of a larger extent of 77+ cents of land, inclusive of shop building Nos.7/80 and 81 at Chumaduthangivilai in Kanyakumari District. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property originally belonged to Madhavanpillai. He settled the property by way of a settlement deed dated 01.08.1973 to his daughter Vasanthakumari. She was in possession of the property. Thereafter, on 03.01.1993, she executed a sale deed with respect to 27.5 cents in the property. The plaintiffs have been in possession of the northern most portion of the property which is under dispute. The first defendant had been disputing both the ownership and also the possession of the said northern side of the property to an extent of 25 cents. The plaintiffs claimed title by way of a sale deed dated 03.01.199 The plaintiffs did not claim any relief against the second defendant. They sought a decree and judgment for declaration of title and injunction against the first defendant.

(3.) The defendants in their written statement stated that the first defendant was in possession of the disputed property as a lessee. They were also paying the property tax. It was also stated that the sale deed relied on by the plaintiffs is not a legal document. In the sale deed, an additional property at Parasala in Kerala, had been included and the said sale deed was a sham and nominal document. The defendants, therefore, claimed that the suit should be dismissed.