The trial court decreed the suit. It directed the defendants to

surrender possession of the house in the plaint schedule property to

the plaintiff. The second defendant filed appeal and it met dismissal.

Hence is she in second appeal.

2.

The case of the plaintiff goes as under: The suit property

belonged to the first defendant. He sold it to the plaintiff under Ext A2

sale deed. Accepting the request of the first defendant, he was

permitted by the plaintiff to reside in the house in the suit property for

three months. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant.

They continue to stay in the house despite the demand of the plaintiff

to vacate it.

3.

The first defendant filed written-statement admitting

execution of Ext A2 sale deed by him in favour of the plaintiff. The

former in his written-statement requested for a period of one year to

surrender the house to the plaintiff.

4.

The second defendant contested the suit. She has the

following contentions: She being the wife of the first defendant is

entitled to reside in the house situated in the plaint schedule property.

Ext A2 is a sham document executed by the first defendant in collusion

with the plaintiff to defeat the right of residence of the second

defendant in the house. The father of the plaintiff is the half-brother of

3

the first defendant. The second defendant filed an application under

Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV

Act for short) against the plaintiff, his father and the first defendant.

The said case numbered as CMP 9093/2012 was settled and an

agreement was executed. The said agreement was signed by the

father of the plaintiff as the power-of-attorney holder of the plaintiff. It

was agreed therein that the plaintiff would transfer the house and 25

cents to the second defendant. The second defendant filed a suit for

specific performance of the said agreement. The said suit is pending.

5.

No oral evidence was adduced by the plaintiff. Exts A1 to

A11 were marked on his side. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts

B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the second defendant.

6.

Heard Sri.K.Jayesh Mohankumar, the learned counsel for

the appellant/second defendant.

7.

Admittedly the first defendant executed Ext A2 sale deed in

favour of the plaintiff. There is no dispute between the seller and the

buyer that the former sold the property to the latter under Ext A2. At

the time of execution of Ext A2, there was no order of any court

prohibiting sale of the plaint schedule property. The second defendant

who contends that Ext A2 is a sham document has no independent

right in the property sold. Hers is only a claim for residence in the

house in the suit property as the wife of the first defendant. She can

have such a right only till her husband retains title to the house. She

4

relies on Ext B6 agreement in which she has conceded to the purchase

of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff from the first defendant.

So long as she relies on Ext B6, she cannot contend that Ext A2 is a

sham document or that title to the plaint schedule property was not

parted with by her husband in favour of the plaintiff. Admittedly a suit

for specific performance of Ext B6 agreement is filed by the second

defendant and is pending. Without admitting the title of the plaintiff,

the second defendant cannot sue for specific performance on the

strength of Ext B6. I am completely in agreement with the concurrent

findings of the courts below that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the

plaint schedule property.

8.

I refrain from going into the question whether Ext B6 is

binding on the plaintiff or not. It is so because it is a matter to be

decided by the court in which the suit for specific performance is

pending. Let the validity and enforceability of Ext B6 be decided in the

said suit. It is not a matter for consideration in the present case.

9.

The second defendant cannot claim immunity from eviction

under the provisions of