The court established that Section 47 of the CPC does not apply to suits by parties who do not claim under the judgment debtors and affirmed the independent title of plaintiffs based on the assignment deed.

EASWARAN S., J.---------------------------------------------------------

R.S.A No.1059 of 2013 ---------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2025

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Munsiff Court, Vaikom, in O.S.No.176/2007 as affirmed by the Additional District Court-I, Kottayam, in A.S.No.65/2009.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

2.1. The plaintiffs claimed right, title and interest over 21.520 cents in Survey No.198/1A and 1.5 cents in Survey No.198/1A by virtue of Ext.A1 sale deed executed by Catholic Syrian Bank in their favour. The 2^nd defendant had O.S.No.13/1985 seeking for partition of 97.875 cents of property in Survey No.198/9B. One of the defendants in the suit was the father of the plaintiffs, namely, Kunjan Pappy. A preliminary decree dated was passed on 31.01.1986 and later, the same was challenged before the District Court, Kottayam. By judgment dated 17.11.1988, the same was confirmed. A further challenge before this Court in S.A No.742/1989 also met with dismissal by judgment dated 12.04.1991. In the meantime, an application for final decree was lodged, which ended in an order dated 09.07.1992. Though an appeal was admitted against the same, the same was unsuccessful. Later, in the final decree proceedings, the Advocate Commissioner appointed the Munsiff Court, inspected the decree schedule property, measured out and submitted a plan, based on which the property was delivered on 26.07.1995. In the meantime, the defendants 3 and 4 in the present suit filed O.S.No.157/1995 before the Sub Court, Kottayam, contending that the plaint schedule property therein was not involved in O.S.No.13/1985 and that the property devolved upon them as per Settlement Deed No.2365/1983 of Vaikom S.R.O. During the pendency of the suit, Kunjan Pappy expired and therefore, the plaintiffs were impleaded as defendants 4 to 8, who later preferred a counter claim on 31.07.1997 against the defendants 1 and 2. By order dated 14.08.2003, the counter claim was dismissed stating that the same is not maintainable as against a co-defendant and aggrieved by the rejection of the counter claim, W.P. (C)No.16069/2004 was preferred. Later, the writ petition was withdrawn by order dated 23.11.2006 with liberty to the plaintiffs to institute a fresh suit on title and accordingly, the present suit was instituted on 13.04.2007.

2.2. The plaintiffs traced their title to the assignment deed executed by Catholic Syrian Bank, who derived right over the property by virtue of a decree for execution of a mortgage in their favour by one late Iype Kora. It is stated that the assignor had purchased the property in execution of a decree for redemption of mortgage and that a symbolic delivery was taken, but then on a step taken by Catholic Syrian Bank for possession, it was found that the property was in the hands of the tenants and therefore, they could not be evicted. In fact, what is contended is that, the said tenant was none other than Kunjan Pappy. The status of Kunjan Pappy as a tenant is not an issue in the present appeal, but then, for the sake of completion of narration of facts, it is thus stated. Armed with the liberty granted by this Court by order dated 23.11.2006, the plaintiffs preferred the present suit seeking a declaration of their title over the plaint schedule property by virtue of the