The judgment establishes that the absence of specific retention clauses in property conveyance documents signifies a complete transfer of title.

J U D G M E N T

RFA No.830/2011 arises from OS 153/2007. The plaintiff is the appellant therein. RFA 821/2013 arises from OS 130/2008. The defendants in the suit are the appellants.

2. OS 153/2007 of the Sub Court Perumbavoor was originally filed as OS 471/2006 of the Sub Court Paravoor. It was transferred and re-numbered as afore. The plaint schedule consists of two items of properties viz. 'A' schedule having an extent of 58 Ares with residential building and other structures, enclosed by a compound wall, and 'B' schedule has an extent of 6.73 Ares out of a larger extent of 7.60 ares. The plaintiff sought for declaration of his title over the properties, a declaration that Exts.A10 and A11 conveyances are not binding on the plaintiff and the plaint schedule property, for a prohibitory injunction against trespass and for damages. The first defendant in the suit is the brother of the plaintiff and the second defendant is the wife of the first defendant.

3. OS 130/2008 is filed by the defendants in OS

153/2007 against the plaintiff in OS 153/07 and two others; the plaintiff in OS 153/07 is the second defendant and the two others were arrayed as defendants 1 and 3 therein. They are the assignees in respect of 0.87 ares of property from out of the larger extent of 7.60 ares made mention of in schedule “B” to OS 153/07. The suit is for a declaration that Ext.A13 conveyance does not affect the plaintiff's title over the said 7.60 Ares of property.

4. The suits were tried jointly and were disposed of by a common judgment. OS 153/07 was taken as the leading case. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in OS 153/07.

5. The plaint 'A' schedule in OS 153/2007 is described as situated on the southern side of a canal and the plaint 'B' schedule is situated on the northern side of the canal. The plaintiffs contend that the extent as mentioned in Ext.A1 is not correct and that certain extent was omitted to be included. The plaintiff claims to have obtained title over 7.60 Ares of property on the northern side of the canal, from out of which an extent of 0.87 Ares were conveyed by him to defendants 1 and 3 in OS 130/2008 under Ext.A13 Sale Deed. It is the remaining 6.73 Ares that is included in schedule 'B' to the plaint. It is the total extent of 7.60 Ares situated on the northern side of the Canal which is the subject matter in OS 130/2008. In the said suit, the plaintiffs therein-the defendants in OS 153/07 challenge Ext.A13 Sale Deed.

6. As stated earlier, the plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers. Ext.A1 Exchange Deed dated

16.12.1983 was executed between the plaintiff and the first defendant whereunder the plaint 'A' schedule property situated on the southern side of a canal and an extent of 7.60 Ares including the plaint 'B' schedule situated on either side of the canal was allotted to the plaintiff as included in item No.1 therein. The properties belonged to the first defendant as per Exts.A2 to A4 documents. In respect of a portion of the property obtained by the plaintiff under Ext.A1, the first defendant executed Ext.A10 Sale Deed dated 23.04.2005 in favour of his wife, the second defendant. Two days later, on 26.04.2005 the second defendant re- conveyed the property in favour of the first defendant as per Ext.A11. Since the defendants stake claim over portions of the plaint schedule properties, the suit is filed.

7. Defendants though admitted Ext.A1, contended that the entire property obtained by the first defendant under Exts.A2 to A4 were not conveyed to the plaintiff under Ext.A1. It was contended that the plaintiff was not assigned any property situated to the north of the canal. It was also contended that the property conveyed to the plaintiff is situated to the west of an “Edavazhi” and that further property on its east remains with the first defendant. It is in respect of that remaining property on the east that Exts.A10 and A11 documents were executed between the defendants.