K. Ramakrishnan, J.

1. Dissatisfied 2nd defendant in O.S.No.361/86 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Wadakkanchery is the appellant herein. The suit was one filed by the 2nd respondent herein as plaintiff for declaration that the judgment in O.S.No.465/68 of the Principal Munsiff Court, Wadakkancherry has been obtained by fraud and in collusion with plaintiff in that case by the defendants and as such the decree and consequential execution proceedings and the sale of the property is to be set aside and not binding on the plaintiff or the plaint schedule property and declare that the defendants have no right over the same and for recovery of plaint schedule property with mesne profits past and future and cost of the proceedings and also for return of gold ornaments and other movables belonged to his mother from the respondents with the following allegations:-

The first defendant is the plaintiff's mother's sister and 2nd defendant is her husband. There was a partition of the family properties of the mother of the plaintiff in the year 1957 and as per the partition deed, the share of the mother was allotted and she was minor at that time and she was represented by the 1st defendant as guardian in the partition deed. That property was shown as A schedule to the plaint. After partition, the mother of the plaintiff and 1st defendant were residing together and 1st defendant was looking after the affairs of the plaintiff's mother as well. Thereafter she was given in marriage and plaintiff was born on 21.05.1966. When the plaintiff was only 8 months old, his mother died due to snake bite and after death ceremonies were conducted in the presence of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant was reluctant to look after the plaintiff and he was taken to his father's house and he was looking after by them thereafter. After the death of mother of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant was in unauthorised occupation of the plaint A schedule property and the residential house which belonged to the mother. At the time of death of his mother, her gold ornaments and other movables were kept in the house, which were shown as plaint B schedule. First defendant was taking income from the properties, it was not accounted. So he sent a notice directing the 1st defendant to surrender possession with movables mentioned therein in the notice and also with profits. At that time she sent a reply stating that as per the partition deed, there was some liability cast on the mother to pay certain amount to one Madhavan Nair and in order to realise the amount, the said Madhavan Nair filed O.S.465/68 impleading the plaintiff, who was minor then represented by his father as guardian and suit was decreed and thereafter the property was brought to sale, in execution and the 2nd defendant as a successful bidder obtained the property in auction and it was confirmed in the name of the 2nd defendant and delivery was obtained through court and he has been in absolute enjoyment and possession of the property. These facts were known to the plaintiff only after receipt of the reply notice. The income from the plaint schedule property was sufficient to discharge the debt. The defendants willfully abstained from discharging the debt. O.S.No.465/68 was a collusive suit instituted by the creditor colluding with defendants 1 and 2. On enquiry, it was understood that the decree was obtained without impleading the legal guardian. So proceedings in O.S.No.465/68, judgment and decree obtained therein and the execution and sale proceedings were fraudulent, void and not binding on the plaintiff's right over the plaint schedule property. At the time of delivery, the house situated therein was not a dilapidated one and at any rate defendants have no right to stealthily demolish and take away the house materials. Misrepresenting that the 1st defendant was the legal guardian of the plaintiff, she was impleaded in the suit as guardian representing the plaintiff. She was not competent to act a