The validity of a settlement deed is upheld when properly executed, and bona fide purchasers must verify property encumbrances to maintain their status.

JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 31.07.2004 in O.S.No.126/1995 on the files of Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, defendants 1, 2, 7 and 8 have filed this appeal arraying plaintiff and defendants 3, 5 and 6 as respondents. During pendency of this appeal, the 1^st and 2^nd appellants died and the legal representatives of the 1^st appellant got arrayed as additional appellants 5 to 8 and the legal representatives of the 2^nd appellant got arrayed as additional appellants 9 to 11.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge.

3. Parties in this appeal will be referred to as `plaintiff’ and `defendants’ hereafter for easy discussion.

4. Short facts: Plaintiff filed this suit for declaration of her title over plaint schedule property on the strength of settlement deed No.3390/1986, marked as Ext.A1. Recovery of possession was sought for on the allegation that while the plaintiff had been possessing and enjoying the plaint schedule property on the strength of Ext.A1 settlement deed, during the month of December, 1994 the defendants trespassed upon the property and took possession of the same after executing Ext.A3 partition deed and Exts.A4 and A5 sale deeds.

5. Defendans 1 and 2 filed written statement and raised contention that the total extent of property was 1 acre and 44 cents and out of which 27 cents were acquired by the Government for Kallada Irrigation Project. According to defendants 1 and 2, the plaint schedule property having an extent of 1.17 cents was owned and possessed by one Ramachandran till his death on 03.01.1991 and after his death, the property devolved upon defendants 3 and 4, who are the widow and son of Ramachandran, and in turn defendants 1 and 2 obtained title over the same on the strength of Exts.A4 and A5 sale deeds dated 09.11.1994, executed by defendants 3 and 4. Right of the plaintiff was denied contending the settlement deed as a false document.

6. The 3^rd defendant filed written statement separately, supporting the contentions raised by defendants 1 and 2 and asserted title over the plaint schedule property being the successor of Ramachandran. Although the 4^th defendant did not file written statement, the legal-heirs of the 4^th respondent impleaded as additional defendants Nos.5 and 6 filed a separate joint written statement in tune with the contentions raised by defendants Nos.1 to 3.

7. On scrutiny of the pleadings as set forth, the trial court recorded evidence after raising necessary issues. PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW1 to DW4 were examined and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the defendants. Apart from that, Exts.C1, C2, Xl, X2 and X3 were marked as court exhibits.

8. Finally the trial court found that the plaintiff perfected title over the plaint schedule property on the strength of Ext.A1 settlement deed and accordingly the same was declared and suit was decreed by granting the relief of recovery of possession of the property and also granting prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from executing any document in respect of the property and the building to any third party. The plaintiff was allowed to realise arrears of damages for use and occupation of the building @ Rs.600/- per annum and mesne profit of Rs.1,000/- per annum from 09.11.1994 till date of giving vacant possession also was granted with costs. The said verdict is under challenge.

9. The learned counsel for the contesting defendants argued at length to convince this Court that Ext.A1 settlement deed was not proved and the extent shown in Ext.A1 as 4 acre 44 cents as against 1 acre 44 cents itself would show the falsity of the document. Further, the status of defendants 1 and 2 as bona fide purchasers is being projected to protect their right over the property ignoring Ext.A1 settlement deed, on the strength of Exts.A4 and A5 sale deeds exe