CELESTINE Vs. EBISAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two items of immovable properties standing in the name of one M.Esthoor constitute the subject matter of the instant second appeal. One item of property admeasures 9 Ares or thereabouts in re-survey No.515/14, 17 in Kadiapattanam village, Kalkulam Taluk, Manavalakurichi Sub District in Kanyakumari district. The other item of immovable property admeasures 64.5 Ares or thereabouts comprised in Re.S.Nos.335/6, 7, 8 in Noondakara-B village, Agasteeswaran Taluk, Rajakkamangalam Sub District in Kanyakumari District. Both these items of immovable properties are described as garden land with coconut trees. These two items of properties standing in the name of one M.Esthoor shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as 'suit properties' for the sake of brevity and convenience. For the sake of clarity, these two items of suit properties with four boundaries as described in the records of court below are set out hereunder :

(2.) It is not in dispute before this Court that the abovesaid Esthoor had 7 sons and 4 daughters in all. The genesis for this lis commenced more than a quarter century ago in 1992. In other words, the genesis for this litigation commenced more than two and half decades ago. To be precise, it commenced on 19.3.1992 when one E.Dennis, one of the seven sons of the aforesaid Esthoor filed a partition suit in O.S.No.257 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram. As there is a second round of litigation about which there shall be discussion infra, this O.S.No.257 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram shall be referred to as 'senior suit' in this judgment. (To be noted, this senior suit was subsequently transferred to District Munsif Court, Eraniel and was renumbered as O.S.No.303 of 1995). In the senior suit, Dennis sought for division by metes and bounds and separate possession of 1/9th share in the suit properties.

(3.) The plaint was predicated on the ground that suit properties were purchased in the name of his father M.Esthoor from and out of the earnings of members of the family. Immediate and proximate cause or in other words cause of action for filing of the senior suit (as it unfurls from the plaint) was that M.Esthoor's son-in-law L.Celestine was influencing M.Esthoor to get suit properties conveyed by sale deeds in Celestine's name for a very nominal price.