Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
K.M. Cherian, S/o. Mathu and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ammini, Daughter Of Late Parasseril Varghese and Ors. – Respondents
AS No. 34 of 2003
Decided On : 07-07-2025
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 58 and 59 - Suit for declaration and recovery of possession - Plaintiffs sought to declare documents as null and void and recover property - Suit dismissed as barred by limitation since filed beyond three years from execution date - Court ruled that plaintiffs may recover possession if documents are proven nullity regardless of prior declaration - Dismissal of claims for damages due to lack of evidence. (Paras 15 - 30 )
(B) Property Law - Rights of successors - First defendant's authority to convey disputed properties analyzed - Court found first defendant's deeds invalid with respect to plaint B schedule property as she lacked rightful title - Plaintiffs entitled to injunction against waste on properties. (Paras 15 , 26 , 28 - 30 )
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, children of four brothers, filed a suit against the first defendant, who was the sole heir of her deceased mother, to declare sale deeds as null and void and to recover jointly owned properties after their mother's death. The suit encountered multiple procedural challenges including issues of limitation and parties' rights. (Paras 1 - 8 )
Findings of Court:
The court reiterated the maintenance requirements of suit and affirmed the significance of valid title for property claims; deemed the first defendant's sales as invalid, permitting the plaintiffs limited recovery on plaint B property. (Paras 14 - 30 )
Issues: 1) Whether the suit is maintainable despite limitations; 2) Can recovery of possession be sought without setting aside prior deeds? 3) Are plaintiffs entitled to recover specific property or injunction against waste? (Paras 12 , 19 )
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisprudence established that if a property document is null and void, the decree for recovery can be sought regardless of prior declaration required for voidable documents; limitation does not bar such recovery claims if the plaintiff's possession has not become adverse. (Paras 25 - 26 , 29)
Result: The appeal is partially allowed granting possession of the plaint B schedule property to the plaintiffs and injunction against the defendants from extracting soil from both properties.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. parties' contentions on property rights. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. trial court issues and findings. (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. limitation and necessity of setting aside documents. (Para 21 , 22 , 25) |
| 5. rights over the plaint a & b schedule properties. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. plaintiffs' rights regarding injunction. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 7. conclusion of the appeal. (Para 31) |
JUDGMENT :
(M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J. )
1. This Appeal Suit is filed by the plaintiffs 2 to 5 in O.S.No.596/1999 of the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. During the pendency of the Appeal, the appellants 1 to 3 died and their legal heirs were impleaded in the Appeal as additional appellants 5 to 13. Additional appellants 5 & 6 are the legal heirs of the first appellant. Additional appellants 7 to 9 are the legal heirs of the second appellant. The additional appellants 10 to 13 are the legal heirs of the third appellant.
2. The suit was originally filed by four persons who are the children of four brothers. During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died and the additional 5th plaintiff is impleaded as the legal heir of the first plaintiff.
3. The suit as amended is mainly for declaring that Exts.A3, A4 & A5 documents of the year 1993 of the SRO, Edappally, as null and void, to set aside the said documents, to pass a decree allowing the plaintiffs to recover the plaint schedule properties from the defendants 1 to 3 and to put the plaintiffs in possession of the plaint schedule properties. Ancillary reliefs are sought to pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from digging, taking and selling out the soil from the plaint schedule properties and to enter into the plaint schedule properties and to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of other co-owners of the plaint schedule properties to recover a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the defendants and their properties along with interest @ 24% per annum thereon.
4. The plaint A schedule property is having an extent of 1 Acre 2 cents of land situated in survey No.798/14/B & A2 of Thrikkakara North Village with all tress and improvements therein which is a part of Item No.2 having an extent of 1 acre 80 cents in Ext.A1 Settlement Deed of the year 1969 executed by late Sri. Joseph. The Plaint B schedule property is having an extent of 3 Acres 48 cents with all improvements therein situated in survey No.801/1B/5/5 of Thrikkakara North Village, which is described in Item No.12 in Ext.A1 Settlement Deed of the year 1969.
5. Admittedly, the plaint schedule properties originally belonged to Joseph, who was the brother of the father of the plaintiffs 1 to 4. The wife of Joseph is Annamma. They had no issues. The first defendant is the daughter of the deceased brother of Annamma and her sole legal heir. The defendants 2 & 3 are husband and wife. The first defendant sold the plaint A schedule property and 39.66 Ares out of plaint B schedule property to the second defendant as per Ext.A5. The first defendant sold 50.59 Ares out of B schedule to the third defendant as per Ext.A3. The first defendant sold 50.59 Ares out of the plaint B schedule property to the second defendant as per Ext.A4. Thus, the entire plaint A & B schedule properties are in the possession of the defendants 2 and 3 as per Exts.A3, A4, & A5 Sale Deeds executed by the first defendant.
6. Pleadings would reveal that Joseph died on 17.06.1979 and Annamma died on 17.06.1981.
7. The plaint allegations are that after the death of Annamma, her exclusive right over item No.1 property in Ext.A1 Settlement Deed was devolved upon the first defendant as Annamma did not have any issues or siblings. It is alleged that the grandson of the brother of Annamma’s husband was looking after the affairs of Annamma and taking advantage of this, he fabricated a Will and filed LAOP No.41/1982 which was converted as O.S.No.13/1983 and a
A suit for recovery of possession can proceed based on claims of nullity of contested documents, regardless of limitations, provided adverse possession has not been claimed.
Suit for declaration and for recovery of possession or for recovery of possession alone is maintainable within 12 years from the date, when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plai....
Suit for declaration and recovery of possession - Decreed - Suit for declaration and recovery of possession on strength of title is maintainable, still it is duty of court to peruse evidence regardin....
Possession for property under void transactions does not confer title; the statutory periods of limitation apply rigorously, especially for minors claiming ownership post-majority.
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for non-disclosure of cause of action and being barred by limitation if claims are based on prior known events.
In a suit for injunction, reliance must be placed on evidence of possession rather than solely on ownership titles. Courts must establish actual possession before granting injunctions.
A suit for declaration of title becomes barred by limitation if not filed within the statutory period following attainment of majority or the deed date, with adverse possession applying for valid cla....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
