Intervening developments in property ownership and lack of substantial questions of law preclude the continuation of the appeal.

Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2026 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the Plaintiff, who is no more, and one of the legal heirs is prosecuting the appeal. Before this Court proceeds to consider the case on merits, it is imperative for this Court to give certain intervening developments. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant died and his two daughters were impleaded as additional appellants 2 and 3. While so, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants 2 and 3 have entered into an inter se partition and the 3^rd appellant had informed the learned counsel for the respondents that she is not interested in prosecuting the appeal further. Accordingly, the copy of the partition deed was produced before this Court. Later, the

2^nd appellant filed an application to transpose the 3^rd appellant as the 3^rd respondent in the appeal. Notice was ordered, but none appeared. Accordingly, by the Order dated 17.11.2025, this Court allowed the application for transposition and transposed the 2^nd appellant as the 3^rd respondent in the appeal and thereafter, the appeal was proceeded further. While so, on 24.01.2026, a memo was filed by the learned counsel for the respondents pointing out that in a suit for declaration of title before the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta as O.S.No.373/2020, the matter was compromised between the respondents herein and the 2^nd appellant herein was transposed as 3^rd respondent and the boundaries stood fixed by a report of the Taluk Surveyor as well as the Advocate Commissioner and therefore, nothing survives in the appeal for further consideration. However, the aforesaid statement was strongly objected to by the learned counsel for the appellant and hence this Court proceeded to consider this appeal to test whether there is any substantial question of law for consideration in the present appeal.

2. Heard Smt.A.Meena, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Thomas George, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

3. The dispute in the present appeal centers around the relief for declaration of the title sought for by the father of the appellant who was the original plaintiff. The father of the appellant purchased an extent of 1.3 Acres as per Sale Deed No.1639 of 1963 of S.R.O., Pathanamthitta. While so, he instituted a suit, O.S.No.116/1979 for a declaration of title and also consequential prohibitory injunction. After a fruitless time, the suit was dismissed by the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta by judgment and decree dated 17.12.1981, finding that the father of the appellant has not proved the identity of the property. While holding so, the Court found that the description of the plaint schedule as well as the property covered under Exhibit-A1 document was not the same. The matter was not taken up thereafter. While so, the father of the appellant preferred the present suit on 03.05.2007 alleging that the defendants were trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property and that the plaint schedule property was not having any visible boundaries and were lying common. item No.2 in the present claim is the property scheduled as covered under the Sale Deed No.1639 of 1963, whereas item No.3 is the property of the defendants. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the plea of declaration of title is already concluded between the plaintiff and the predecessor in the interest of the defendants in O.S.No.116/1979 and therefore, the present suit is hit by res judicata. This plea was accepted by the trial court and the suit was dismissed. Though the Original plaintiff filed A.S. No.182/2009 before the District Court, Pathanamthitta, the same was dismissed by judgment dated 01.08.2012 and hence the present appeal.

4. As st