The court affirmed that a Purchase Certificate under the Kerala Land Reforms Act is conclusive proof of title, and the plaintiffs' claim was time-barred due to their prior knowledge of the sale deed.

JUDGMENT :

[RSA Nos. 937/2011, 1011/2011]

1. These two Regular Second Appeals arise from two suits - O.S.No.349/2005 & O.S.No.220/2006, which are disposed of by a common judgment by the Trial Court, and hence these Appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The plaint schedule property in both the suits is one and the same, having an extent of 5.714 cents, and the residential building therein covered in Ext.B1 Purchase Certificate. Ext.B1 Purchase Certificate is issued in the name of one Kallu.

3. O.S.No.220/2006 is filed by the plaintiffs who are the seven children of Shekharan and Kallu. The defendants therein are wife and husband, of whom the 1 st defendant purchased the Plaint Schedule property from Kallu as per Ext.B2 Sale Deed.

4. O.S No.349/2005 is filed by the 1 st defendant in O.S No.220/2006. The defendants in O.S.No. 349/2005 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.220/2006 except plaintiffs Nos. 1 & 5.

5. The first suit is O.S. No. 349/2005. The said suit was filed seeking a mandatory injunction on the strength of the title of the plaintiff therein as per Ext.B2 Sale Deed, directing the defendants therein to surrender the plaint schedule property.

6. O.S.No.220/2006 is filed for a declaration that Ext.B2 Sale Deed is null and void and not binding on the plaint schedule property and the plaintiffs therein, on the ground that Kallu executed Ext.B2 in favour of the 1 st defendant therein as the security for a loan of Rs.20,000/- availed from the defendants and that Kallu did not have any saleable interest in the plaint schedule property.

7. In both suits, the legality of the Ext.B2 Sale Deed was the main question.

8. The Trial Court jointly tried both suits together treating O.S.No. 220/2006 as the leading case.

9. The Trial Court decreed O.S.No. 349/2005 granting a mandatory injunction directing the defendants therein to surrender vacant possession of plaint schedule property within a period of one month with cost of litigation and dismissed O.S No.220/2006 with costs.

10. The defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No. 349/2005 filed A.S No. 73/2008 and the plaintiffs 1 to 4 in O.S. No. 220/2006 filed A.S No.74/2008 challenging the judgments and decrees in the respective suits.

11. The First Appellate Court allowed both the Appeals setting aside the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court in both the suits and dismissing O.S.No. 349/2005 and decreeing in O.S No.220/2006 declaring that the plaintiffs therein have right, title, and interest over the plaint schedule property as Kudikidappukars as per Ext.B1 Purchase Certificate in favour of Kallu and that Ext.B2 Sale Deed in favour of the 1 st defendant therein is null and void as far as the plaintiff’s right in the property and that it will not bind the plaintiffs.

12. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 349/2005 filed R.S.A. No. 937/2011 and the defendants and in O.S.No.220/2006 filed R.S.A.No.1011/2011 challenging the respective judgments and decrees passed by the First Appellate Court.

13. This Court admitted both the Appeals formulating the following substantial questions of law. Even if Ext.B1 Kudikidappu Certificate was taken as enuring to the benefit of Shekharan, and on his death his rights devolved on his legal heirs including the children, when two of the children were attesting witnesses to Ext.B2 Sale Deed where under Kallu transferred the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S No. 349/2005 and O.S No. 220/2006 to set aside Ext.B2 sale deed was instituted after three years from the date of execution of Ext.B2 Sale Deed, whether the suit is not barred by limitation and if so, whether a decree could have been granted in favour of the plaint