JUDGMENT

I am considering these two appeals together and am disposing them of through a common judgment, since the factual factors involved and the forensic issues impelled are analogous, if not identical.

2. The facts in brief, which led to the parties to the Sub Court, Tirur, will have to be first seen.

3. The plaint schedule property, which comprises of 17.5 cents, originally belonged to Late Nellikkaparambil Beevikutti Umma (who will hereinafter to be referred to as 'Beevikutti Umma'), who subsequently, settled it in favour of her son, Shri.Saidalavi, who is the 2nd appellant in both these appeals. Shri.Saidalavi, thereafter, sold 2/3rd right in the property in favour of Shri.Pallippattu Thoomban Abdul Muneer (who will hereinafter be referred to as 'Abdul Muneer'), through a document, bearing number 5014 of 2009 of the SRO, Tanur, which has been marked in evidence as Ext.A3; while the balance 1/3rd right was resold by him to his mother Smt.Beevikutti Umma, through a document bearing number 1037 of 2003.

4. A year later, Shri.Abdul Muneer filed O.S.No.260 of 2010 on the files of the Sub Court, Tirur, against Smt.Beevikutti Umma seeking partition of the plaint schedule property and