The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of establishing valid title, the consequences of contradictory claims, and the implications of fraud and collusion in property disputes.

Antony Dominic, J.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.413 of 2011 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, is the appellant. The suit was filed for declaring that Ext.A6, sale deed No.1277 of 2009 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3, is null and void. He also sought a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into Plaint A Schedule property and from committing waste therein. Defendants 2 and 3 contested the suit and in the written statement, they also raised counter claim, to set aside the judgment and decree of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam in O.S.No.517 of 2007 on the ground that it is vitiated by fraud and collusion. They also sought a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with their ownership, possession and enjoyment of plaint B schedule property. By the impugned judgment and decree, the suit was dismissed and the counter claim was decreed setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.517 of 2007 and granting injunction as prayed for. It is aggrieved by this judgment, the appeal is filed.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. There was no appearance or representation on behalf of the 1st respondent.

3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the 1st respondent is his brother and that the second and third respondents are his son and divorced wife respectively. According to him, he had purchased 48 cents of property and a building therein, comprised in R.S.No.102/6 of Manakunnam Village in the name of the 1st respondent, out of which 15 cents was assigned in favour of his daughter and son in law. In respect of the balance 33 cents, which is Plaint A schedule property, it was averred that as per the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 in O.S.No.517 of 2007 of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, he had perfected title over the plaint A schedule property by adverse possession and limitation. According to him, in spite of it, on 17.07.2009, the 1st respondent executed Ext.A6 title deed in respect of 18.903 cents of land from the plaint A schedule property, which is plaint B schedule, in favour of respondents 2 and 3. According to him, the 1st respondent did not have any right to execute such a document and that the said document was executed by playing fraud, misrepresentation and collusion and therefore was void. It was, in these circumstances, he filed the suit for a declaration that Ext.A6 document is null and void and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from trespassing into Plaint A schedule property.

4. Before the trial court, the 1st respondent did not contest the case. As far as respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, they filed written statement, contending that the plaintiff was never in ownership or enjoyment of plaint A or B schedule properties. It was their case that the property belonged to the 1st respondent absolutely and that the plaintiff obtained decree in O.S.No.517 of 2007 by playing fraud on the court and in collusion with the 1st respondent. They also contended that they came to know of the judgment and decree only on receipt of a copy of the indigent application filed by the appellant in this suit. It was their case that the 1st respondent, who acquired title over the property as per Exts.B1 and B2, was entitled to convey valid title in their favour against the consideration. Respondents 2 and 3 also disputed the averments in the plaint that the marital relationship between the appellant and the 3rd respondent was dissolved by an order of court. According to him, they had no notice in any such proceedings and if at all any such order has been obtained, that also is fraudulent.

5. According to them, in addition to the property included in plaint A schedule, the 1st respondent had purchased another 3 cents for using it as pathway to plaint A schedule property. There was an oral agreement between the 1s