JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents.

2. 3rd respondent in A.S.No.6 of 2013 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nedumangad is the appellant. She is not a party to the original suit. She is a pendente lite purchaser of the property from 1st defendant in the suit. Contesting respondent in this appeal is the plaintiff.

3. Suit is one for declaration that the decree passed in O.S.No.643 of 2001 before the Court of Munsiff, Nedumangad was obtained by perpetrating fraud on the plaintiff by his assignor (2nd defendant in the suit) and also by the collusion of defendants together. Further, the plaint B schedule property, which was incorporated by way of an amendment, is sought to be recovered on the strength of the plaintiff's title. In addition to that, it is also prayed for fixation of boundary by separating the plaint A schedule property and the property belonging to the 1st defendant, by constructing a retention wall. Further more, prohibitory injunction reliefs are also claimed.

4. Relevant pleadings are as follows:

Plaint A schedule property originally belonged to the husband of 2nd defendant namely, Sukumaran. The property is comprised in Resurvey Nos.1