Title and possession can be established through legitimate legal documents, with prior judicial findings being binding in subsequent claims regarding the same property.

JUDGMENT

These two appeals are filed by the defendants in O.S.No.1188/99 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. Suit was one for declaration of title, possession and injunction. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. The appellants/defendants had raised a counter claim in the suit. Plaint claim was allowed and counter claim dismissed. The lower appellate court, confirmed the decision of the trial court dismissing the two appeals, separately filed by the defendants against the decree allowing the suit claim and dismissing counter claim. Concurrent decision so rendered by the courts below is challenged in these two appeals.

2. Admittedly, the plaint schedule property belonged to one Kesavan Nadar and his wife Janaki, who executed a sale deed in favour of their daughter Devaki. A1 is that sale deed. Devaki executed A2 settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Ever since A2, according to the plaintiffs , they are in possession and enjoyment of the property as its title holders. 1st defendant is the brother of the 2nd plaintiff, and 2nd defendant is his wife. Defendants 3 to 6 are the children of defendants 1 and 2. Alleging threat of interference and disturbance of their peaceful possession over the suit property, the plaintiffs laid the suit seeking the declaration and consequential reliefs.

3. The defendants filed a joint written statement resisting the suit claim contending that late Kesavan Nadar and his wife had executed a gift deed in favour of defendants 3 to 6 in respect of 10 cents of property and that gift was accepted on their behalf by the father and guardian, the 1st defendant. It was further contended that to the south of the 10 cents of property, the 1st defendant has right over 6½ cents of property as a co-owner. A1 sale deed executed by Kesavan Nadar and Janaki in favour of Devaki was impeached by these defendants as a fraudulent document, contending that it was created by impersonation and forging the signature of Kesavan Nadar. The defendants also set up a counter claim for setting aside A1 sale deed. An alternative plea was also raised by the defendants that over the 10 cents of property covered by the gift deed, in favour of defendants 3 to 6, even assuming that the plaintiffs have got any title by having adverse possession, they have prescribed title. To the counter claim raised by the defendants, the plaintiffs filed a written statement controverting the case of the defendants for the reliefs raised therein.

4. On the materials placed by both sides, which consisted of A1 to A10 for the plaintiffs, and DW.1 and B1 to B10 for the defendants, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are having title over the suit property and the challenge thereto set up by the defendants is baseless. Counter claim raised by the defendants impeaching A1 sale deed was also found not worthy of any merit. It was noticed, from the materials tendered, that there was a previous suit as between the parties other than the 2nd defendant herein, the wife of the 1st defendant and mother of the other defendants, in which the partition of the properties left behind by Kesavan Nadar, the predecessor, was the subject matter involved. In that suit, the present 1st defendant had raised a contention that the suit property herein covered by A2 settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs was not available for partition. That plea canvassed by the 1st defendant was accepted and excluding that property, a decree was passed in that case. With respect to other challenges raised in that suit for partition, 1st defendant along with his children, defendants 3 to 6 herein, preferred an appeal impeaching the decree granted in the suit. That appeal being dismissed a second appeal was preferred, and that too was turned down. So much so, whatever had been canvassed by the 1st defendant, with respect to the exclusion of the property covered by A2 settlement deed in favour of the present plaintiffs, was practically con