The 2nd defendant and additional 3rd defendant (who are assignees from defendants 1 and 4 respectively) in OS No.114/1984 on the file of the Prl. Sub Court, Thiruvanthapuram, are the appellants in this appeal. The said suit was for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s one half share over the plaint, A, B and C schedule properties. The pliant A schedule property is 20 cents of land with a building situated thereon called “Grace Lodge” comprised in Chengazhassery village of Thiruvanthapuram District. The plaint B schedule property is 40 cents of land with a building thereon situated in Cheruvakkal village of Thiruvanthapuram, District. The plaint C schedule is a 1971 model Fiat motor car bearing registration No.KLV 5422.

2. The case of the plaintiff can be summarized as follows:-

The plaint A, B and C Schedule properties belonged to late Johnstone who died on 2.7.1981. The 1st defendant is his widow and the plaintiff is their son. Johnstone was the principal of English College, Johore Baru, Malaysia. After retirement from service he returned to India in the year 1966. At that time his wife, the 1st defendant, was residing in the building called “Grace Lodge” situated in the plaint A schedule property. Johnstone did not take up residence with her in view of his strained relationship with her. Instead, he took up residence with his brother S.P. Stephen at the latter’s house called “Saralil” in Nanthencode, Thiruvanthapuram. Johnstone resided there until his death. The plaint C schedule motor car was purchased by Johnstone while he was residing there. After a few days of his death, the 1st defendant, with the object of securing possession of the said motor car, falsely instituted criminal proceedings against S.P. Stephen alleging that the car was taken away by him from her possession by criminally intimidating her. She had obtained custody of the car through court. The criminal case eventually ended in dismissal. But the question of custody of the car is still pending consideration. Immediately after securing possession of the car, the 1st defendant had filed a suit for partition before the Sub Court, Thiruvanthapuram, as OS 324/1981 claiming that she was entitled to get one half share over the assets of deceased Johnstone and the plaintiff, who is the son, is entitled to the other half. In that suit the 1st defendant obtained an order of injunction against the plaintiff herein restraining him from interfering with her possession of the plaint A schedule property and her residence in the building situated in the property. Thereafter she tried to encumber the plaint schedule properties to strangers with a view to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. On 29.12.1982 she executed Ext.A8 mortgage deed in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the plaint A schedule property with authority to make alterations and improvements in the building situated in the property. Accordingly the 2nd defendant is in possession of the property. The 1st defendant had no right or authority to execute Ext.A8 mortgage deed which is void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff or the plaint A schedule property. It was also executed pendente lite and therefore hit by lis pendens. The 1st defendant has only a mere right of enjoyment over half of the immovable properties owned by deceased Johnstone. The plaintiff being the only son of deceased Johnstone is entitled. The 2nd defendant is only a name-lender to Ext.A8 mortgage and it is his father who, by virtue of his influence and power, entered into the said transaction. The 2nd defendant is trying to renovate the building in the plaint A schedule property without any authority to do so. He is also attempting to induct strangers in the plaint A schedule property to the detriment of the plaintiff who is the sole legal heir and reversioner in respect of the properties left behind by Johnstone. Johnstone during his life time had expressed his desire to give the plaint C schedule motor