JUDGMENT :- The sole question for consideration in the second appeal is whether the estate of deceased Padmanabhan Narayanan was sufficiently and effectively represented in O.S. No. 217 of 1123. A few facts may be stated.

2. The suit properties belonged to the Arayan Vilakathu Valia Veedu, and these properties along with other were outstanding on a mortgages with Padmanabhan Narayanan on a document of 1104. There were two additional charges also in his favour en the same properties. Narayanan executed a sub-mortgage in favour of the 1st defendant, whose heirs are the other defendants, and also put him in possession of suit item 5. Subsequently, Narayanan purchased the properties from the mortgagors, agreeing that he would discharge the sub-mortgage and put the mortgagors in possession of item 5 within a particular time. On the allegation that Narayanan did not comply with the condition, the mortgagors resold the properties to the 1st defendant.

2a. Narayanan filed O.S. No. 40 of 1122 for recovery of item 5 from the 1st defendant; and the 1st defendant filed O.S. No. 217 of 1123 against Narayanan for redemption of the mortgage and settling accounts on the basis of the sale deed he obt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document