JUDGMENT: Defendants 1, 2 and 11 in O.S.58 of 1991 on the file of Sub Court, Mahe are the appellants.

2. The material facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be summarised thus: Plaint scheduled property originally belonged to one Kumaran as per Kuzhikkanapattam (lease) dated 11.4.1937. On the basis of that document, Kumaran put up constructions. While so, as per Ex.A-1, dated 29.5.1967, he executed a settlement in the nature of gift in favour of four of his children (1) Leela Raghvan, (2) Ramachandran, (3) Jayaraman, and (4) Sivaraman. Kumaran had other children also and they are Hayna Gangadharan and K.K.Vijayan. At the time of his death, Kumaran had also left his widow Rohini.

3. On 29.11.1987, Leela, Ramachandran, Jayaraman, widow of Sivaraman representing herself and her minor children, executed Ex.A-2 agreement for sale in favour of plaintiff. Leela and Ramachandran are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. After execution of the agreement, Jayaraman also died and his legal representative are defendants 3 to 6.

Widow and children of Sivaraman are defendants 7, 8 and 9 of whom, defendants 8 and 9 were minors on the date of suit. As stated earlier, widow of Kumaran was ali

Click Here to Read the rest of this document