Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1865 (KER)

Joseph. J. Palathara v. Sasidharan

2025-07-07

C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : C. Pratheep Kumar, J. The 1 st defendant in OS 23/2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.). 2. The plaintiffs 1 to 6 filed the above suit for declaration and injunction. The 1 st plaintiff is the father of the 2 nd plaintiff, 3 rd plaintiff is the wife of the 2 nd plaintiff, 4 th plaintiff is the brother-in-law of the 2 nd plaintiff and 5 th plaintiff is the mother of the 6 th plaintiff. As per the plaint averments, the plaint schedule property consists of three items. Out of which, item No.1 consisting of 1.16 Ares of property belonged to plaintiffs 1 to 3 was obtained by them as per sale deed No.2168/2016 from the 6 th plaintiff on 10.6.2016. Plaint schedule item No.2 consisting of 1.85 Ares of property also belonged to plaintiffs 1 to 3 which they obtained as per sale deed No.2167/2016 from the 5 th plaintiff. Plaint schedule item No.3 consisting of 37 Sq.Metres of property belonged to the 4 th plaintiff which he obtained as per sale deed No.2119/2016 from the 5 th plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs, the 1 st defendant is a tenant in the shop room situated in plaint schedule item No.3. According to them, the 1 st defendant has no right over the plaint schedule property except that he is a tenant in plaint schedule item No.3. While so, the 2 nd defendant executed gift deed No.2002/2016 on 1.6.2016 of SRO, Alappuzha in favour of the 1 st defendant. The property mentioned in the above gift deed is plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3. In fact, the 2 nd defendant has absolutely no right or title over the properties covered by the gift deed. It was in the above context that the plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that the plaint schedule properties belong to them and also that gift deed No.2002/2016 of SRO Alappuzha is not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaint schedule properties. They also sought for an injunction restraining the defendants from creating any encumbrance or alienating the property covered by the above gift deed. 3. The defendants filed written statement contending that the plaintiffs have no title over the plaint schedule properties. They also sought for an injunction restraining the defendants from creating any encumbrance or alienating the property covered by the above gift deed. 3. The defendants filed written statement contending that the plaintiffs have no title over the plaint schedule properties. According to them, plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3 properties are portions of the property obtained by the grandfather of the 2 nd defendant by name Veeramony Ayyan. According to them, Muthu Ayyan Andi Ayyan originally had 77 cents of property comprised in Survey No.814/20/1, 814/20/2 and 814/21. Out of which, Muthu Ayyan Andi Ayyan sold two cents and the remaining 75 cents was sold to Veeramony Ayyan, the grandfather of the 2 nd defendant, as per sale deed No. 3448 of 1088 ME. After the death of Veeramony Ayyan the property devolved upon the 2 nd defendant and his father Ramasubramanyam and after the death of Ramasubramanyam, the entire 75 cents of property devolved upon the 2 nd defendant. According to the defendants, Muthu Ayyan Andi Ayyan never assigned any property covered by the above survey numbers in favour of the predecessors of the plaintiffs. Therefore, according to the defendants, the documents executed in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 4 are fraudulent documents and they did not get any title or possession over the plaint schedule properties comprised in the above three survey numbers. 4. Further, according to the defendants, as per the revenue records the 2 nd defendant and his predecessors were having 26 cents of property as per Thandaper No.411 of Mullackal village. Out of which, 18 cents was in survey No.814/20/2 and 8 cents was in survey No.814/20/2/3 and they were paying basic tax also for the said 26 cents. Out of the above 26 cents, the 2 nd defendant sold 15½ cents of property in the year 1993 and the remaining 10.500 cents covered by Thandaper No.411 of Mullackal village which was there in the name of the 2 nd defendant was gifted in favour of the 1 st defendant, as per gift deed No.2002 dated 1.6.2016 of SRO, Alappuzha. Therefore, according to the defendants, now the 1 st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the above 10.500 cents and the plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3 is part of the above 10.500 cents belonging to the 1 st defendant. Therefore, according to the defendants, now the 1 st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the above 10.500 cents and the plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3 is part of the above 10.500 cents belonging to the 1 st defendant. They would further contend that the title deeds relied upon by the plaintiffs does not in any way affect the title of the 1 st defendant over the above 10.500 cents of property. The defendants denied the allegation that the 1 st defendant is a tenant in the building situated in plaint schedule item No.3 property. The further allegation that the 1 st defendant has no right over the building in plaint schedule item No.3 is false. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs influenced the Re.Survey authorities and manipulated Re.Survey records. It is also contended that if the plaintiffs have executed any documents in respect of any property covered by sale deed No.3448 of 1088 ME, it is void in law. In the light of the above contentions the defendants prayed for dismissing the suit. 5. The trial court framed four issues. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PW1, DW1 and DW2 and Exts.A1 to A37, B1 to B11, C1, C1(a) and X1. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court decreed the Suit declaring that the plaintiffs have title over the plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3 properties and also declared that gift deed No.2002/2016 of SRO Alappuzha is not binding on the plaintiffs' right over plaint schedule item No.1 to 3 properties and also restrained the defendants by way of prohibitory injunction from creating any encumbrance over the plaint schedule item Nos. 1 to 3 properties on the strength of the above gift deed and they were also restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the above properties. Being aggrieved by the above judgment and decree of the trail court, the 1 st defendant preferred this appeal. 6. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following : (i) Whether the plaintiffs have proved their title and possession over the plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3 properties ? (ii) Whether the 1 st defendant obtained tile over 10.500 cents of property covered by gift deed No.2002/2016 of SRO, Alappuzha. 6. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following : (i) Whether the plaintiffs have proved their title and possession over the plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3 properties ? (ii) Whether the 1 st defendant obtained tile over 10.500 cents of property covered by gift deed No.2002/2016 of SRO, Alappuzha. (iii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court calls for any interference in the light of the grounds raised in the appeal ? 7. Heard Sri.T.Krishnanunni, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants as instructed by Smt.T.R.Mini and Sri.K.S.Hariharaputharam, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, and 5 to 6. 8. The suit was originally dismissed by the trial court as per judgment dated 29.10.2018. The plaintiffs preferred appeal against the above judgment and decree as RFA 513/2018 before this Court. As per judgment dated 11.6.2020, this Court remanded the matter for fresh disposal. It was thereafter that the trial Court after hearing both sides passed the impugned judgment and decree. 9. The points : The learned Senior counsel who is appearing for the appellant/1 st defendant would argue that though the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their title, the trial court has not probed the title of the plaintiffs but instead proceeded to probe about the title of the defendants and held that the defendants have no title over the properties claimed by them and thereafter proceeded to decree the suit. According to the learned senior counsel, the plaintiffs have to prove their title by themselves and for the said purpose they cannot rely upon the weakness of the defendants' case. According to the learned Senior counsel, the above procedure adopted by the trial court is against the settled principles of law and as such, requires interference by this Court in appeal. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for the plaintiffs would argue that the plaintiffs have proved their title over the plant schedule properties and from the evidence on record it is also revealed that the 1 st defendant has obtained no title or possession over the properties covered by gift deed No.2002/2016. Therefore, according to him, there is absolutely no merits in this appeal and hence, he prayed for dismissing the same. 10. Therefore, according to him, there is absolutely no merits in this appeal and hence, he prayed for dismissing the same. 10. As argued by the learned Senior counsel, in this case, on the side of the plaintiffs, no attempt was made to take out a Commissioner for identifying or demarcating the plaint schedule properties. At the same time, at the instance of defendants, an advocate commissioner and Surveyor were appointed and they have measured the properties and prepared Exts.C1 and C1(a) Commissioner report and sketch in which 75 cents covered by document No.3488 of 188 of ME and 26 cents claimed by the defendants as per Resurvey records and also 10.500 cents covered by gift deed No.2002/2016 were demarcated. 11. In support of the argument that in a suit on title the plaintiff has to prove his title, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in Jaimon v. Sebastian , 2022 ICO 2544. 12. On the other hand, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smriti Debbarma (Dead) through Legal Representative v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, AIR 2023 SC 379 , the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would argue that even in a suit for title and possession if the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability in his favour, the onus shifts on the defendant. In the above decision in paragraph 31 the Apex Court held that: “.......... Onus of proof , no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the defendant. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title.” 13. It is true that generally in a suit on title, the plaintiff has to prove his title. However, in a suit for title and possession, if the plaintiff succeeds in creating a high degree of probability in his favour, the burden shifts on to the defendant. 14. As argued by the learned Senior counsel, in the plaint, the plaintiffs have not disclosed the details of the derivation of their title. However, at the time of evidence, the plaintiffs have produced their prior title deeds. 14. As argued by the learned Senior counsel, in the plaint, the plaintiffs have not disclosed the details of the derivation of their title. However, at the time of evidence, the plaintiffs have produced their prior title deeds. Exts. A6, A7 and B11 are their prior title deeds. As per Ext. A6 sale deed of 1950, the 1 st plaintiff's mother Thankamma and their grandfather Padmanabha Pillai obtained 30 cents of property and out of which 17 cents were comprised in Sy. No.814/20/1, 11 cents comprised in Sy. No.814/20/2 and 2 cents comprised in Sy. No.814/21. In Ext. B11, the prior deed of the Ext.B6 also, the same descriptions are given. Thereafter, as per Ext. A7 document in the year 1983, the 5 th plaintiff, Vijayakumari obtained 11 cents and her sister Shylaja obtained 10.750 cents of property and their brother Harikumar obtained 4.250 cents. In 2006, as per Ext. A10 sale deed, Shylaja sold a portion of the property she obtained as per Ext.A7 to the 6 th plaintiff. Exts. A18 to A31 are the basic tax receipts in respect of the above 30 cents in favour of the predecessors of the plaintiffs. After the execution of Exts. A2, A3 and A4, the plaintiffs effected mutation in their favour and Exts.A32, 33, 34 and 35 are the documents showing that the plaint schedule items 1 to 3 are mutated in their favour. Therefore, from Exts.A11, A6, A7 and A2 to 4 documents, it can be seen that the plaintiffs 1 to 4 proved their title and possession over plaint schedule items 1 to 3. Similarly from Exts. A19 to A35, it is also revealed that plaintiffs 1 to 4 mutated the property in their name and they were paying land tax for the said property in continuation of their predecessors in interest. 15. On the other hand, according to the defendants, one Muthu Ayyan Andi Ayyan had 77 cents of property. Ext.B2 is the copy of the settlement register in favour of Muthu Ayyan Andi Ayyan in respect of the above 77 cents. Out of the above 77 cents, 35 cents was in Sy.No.814/20/1, 26 cents was in Sy.No.814/20/2 and 16 cents was in Sy.No.814/21. Ext.B2 is the copy of the settlement register in favour of Muthu Ayyan Andi Ayyan in respect of the above 77 cents. Out of the above 77 cents, 35 cents was in Sy.No.814/20/1, 26 cents was in Sy.No.814/20/2 and 16 cents was in Sy.No.814/21. According to them, out of 77 cents, Muthu Ayyan Andi Ayyan sold 2 cents and the remaining 75 cents comprised in Sy.No.814/20/1, 814/20/2 and 814/21 was purchased by Veeramony Ayyan, the grandfather of the 2 nd defendant as per Ext.B3 sale deed No.3448/1088 ME. According to the defendants, out of the above 75 cents the 2 nd defendant and his father Ramasubramanyam obtained 26 cents as revealed from Ext.B4 Thandaper register. Further according to the defendants, out of the above 26 cents mentioned in Ext.B5 Thandaper register, 15.500 cents was sold as per Exts.A8 and A9 sale deeds and the remaining 10.500 cents was remaining with the 2 nd defendant. According to the learned Senior counsel, the remaining 10.500 cents after the execution of Exts.A8 and A9 is the property gifted to the 1 st defendant as per Ext.B6 gift deed. Relying upon Ext.C2 Commission report and the plan attached thereto, the learned Senior counsel would argue that the above 10.500 cents is clearly demarcated by the Commissioner with the help of Surveyor and as such, the above 10.500 cents covered by Ext.B6 proves the case put forward by defendants 1 and 2. 16. However on a detailed verification of Ext.B3 sale deed No.3448/1088 , it can be seen that, as per the said document, the grandfather of the 2 nd defendant Veeramoni Ayyan had not obtained entire 75 cents of property as now claimed. In fact in Ext.B3 sale deed, the extent of property conveyed is not specified. The description shows that out of the 75 cents of property comprised in Sy.Nos.840/20/1, 840/20/2 and 840/21, the southern portion, along with the structures therein alone was assigned as per Ext.B3. Though at the beginning of the description of property there is mention about 75 cents, from the later part of the description it can be seen that only a portion on the southern side of the above 75 cents was sold as per Ext.B3. The defendants would further contend that as per the re-survey records the 2 nd defendant and his father obtained 26 cents of property. The defendants would further contend that as per the re-survey records the 2 nd defendant and his father obtained 26 cents of property. For claiming the above 26 of property the only documents relied upon by them are Ext.B4 Thandaper register and Ext.B5 copy of the tax receipt. In this context, as argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, entries in the revenue records do not confer title. ( Union of India and Others v. Vasavi Co- op. Housing Society Ltd., and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 269 ). 17. Relying upon Ext.B2 settlement register the leaned Senior counsel would argue that the predecessor of the grandfather of the 2 nd defendant namely Muthu Ayyan Andi Ayyan obtained 75 cents. It is true that as per the settlement register, Muthu Ayyan Andi Ayyan had 75 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.814/20/1, 814/20/2 and 814/21. However, as I have already noted above, as per Ext.B3 Veeramony Ayyan obtained only a portion from the southern portion of 75 cents. It is also true that in Ext.B4 Thandaper register, it is stated that the 2 nd defendant and his father obtained 26 cents of property and out of which 18 cents situates in Sy.No.814/20/1 and 8 cents is in Sy.No.814/20/2. According to the plaintiffs though as per the Thandaper register there was 26 cents in the name of the 2 nd defendant and his father, they were in possession of only 15.500 cents and that the above entire 15.500 cents was assigned as per Exts.A8 and A9. The learned Senior counsel has relied upon the description of property in Exts.A8 and A9 to contend that there was 26 cents and only 15.500 cents was assigned as per Exts.A8 and A9. In the above circumstances, it is necessary to look into the description of property in Ext.A8 and A9 in detail. 18. Exts.A8 and A9 are seen executed by the 2 nd defendant Veeramoni along with his children Ramesh and Latha. In the above documents on behalf of Ramesh and Latha, Veeramony Ayyan executed those documents as their Power of Attorney holder. Exts.A8 and A9 further state that after the death of the 2 nd defendant's parents, the 2 nd defendant along with his children became the owners of 26 cents of property described therein. In the above documents on behalf of Ramesh and Latha, Veeramony Ayyan executed those documents as their Power of Attorney holder. Exts.A8 and A9 further state that after the death of the 2 nd defendant's parents, the 2 nd defendant along with his children became the owners of 26 cents of property described therein. The documents further state that out of the above 26 cents, after excluding the property already assigned (pokku neekki), the actual extent in the possession was only 15.500 cents. The document further states that, out of the above 15.500 cents, 5.500 cents on the east was assigned as per Ext.A8 sale deed and the remaining 10 cents on the western side was assigned as per ExtA9 sale deed. Thereafter, in the schedule attached to Exts.A8 and A9 also it is stated that, out of the total extent of 26 cents comprised in Sy.No.814/20/1/2 and 814/20/2/3, after excluding the assigned property (pokku neekki) the actual extent in the possession is only 15.500 cents comprised in Sy.No.814/20/1/2. From the discussions in Ext.A8 it can be seen that out of the above 15.500 cents in actual possession, 5.500 cents from the eastern side touching the northern and southern boundaries was assigned as per Ext.A8. Further, 10 cents on the western side touching the northern and southern boundaries is assigned as per Ext.A9. Thereafter, the description of the property further proceeds to hold that in addition to the structures situated in the said property, the boundary walls situates on the north and south were also assigned as per the above documents. 19. The northern boundary of the property covered by Exts.A8 is shown as Padmanabha Pilla’s property. Its eastern boundary is shown as road, southern boundary is shown as Brahmana samooham’s Bhagavathy Madam and western boundary is shown as Pattaniparambu purayidam. In Ext.A9 also, the very same description and boundaries are shown. Therefore it can be seen that the boundaries shown in Ext.A8 and A9 are the common boundaries of the entire 15.500 cents and not the separate boundaries of 5.500 cents and 10 cents. 20. On a perusal of Ext.A8 and A9 it can be seen that the 2 nd defendant and his children have not retained any balance property, after the execution of those documents. 20. On a perusal of Ext.A8 and A9 it can be seen that the 2 nd defendant and his children have not retained any balance property, after the execution of those documents. If any portion of the property was left behind at the time of executing Exrts.A8 and A9, at least one of the boundaries of the properties covered by Exts.A8 and A9 would have been shown as the remaining property of the 2 nd defendant and his children. Absence of any statement in Exts.A8 and A9 stating that the 2 nd defendant and his children had any property remaining after the execution of those documents substantiates the contention of the plaintiffs that while executing those documents they had only 15.500 cents as clearly mentioned therein. Though in ExtsA8 and A9 it is stated that out of the total extent of 26 cents, after excluding the assigned property (pokku neekki), the actual extent available is only 15.500 cents, the details of such assignment is not disclosed. Therefore, the claim now put forward to the effect that at that time they had 26 cents of property in their possession can only be false. 21. At the final stage of the argument, the learned Senior counsel fairly conceded that the defendants have no dispute with regard to the property claimed by the plaintiffs as per their title deeds. At that time, the arguments advanced by him is to the effect that the property claimed by the defendants is entirely different from the property claimed by the plaintiffs. According to him, the property belonging to the plaintiffs lie on the northern side of the property claimed by the defendants and that what is required is only to demarcate the boundaries separating those properties so that both the properties can be identified separately. However, the above argument advanced by the learned Senior counsel appears to be not sustainable in the light of several other circumstances which are discussed hereunder. 22. At first blush the above argument looks attractive and convincing. It is true that the plaintiffs and defendants are claiming title over different documents and the title deeds of their predecessors are also entirely different. While the defendant’s prior title deed is Ext.B3 sale deed of the year 1088 ME, the plaintiffs prior title deed is Exts.B11 of 1116 ME. The executants of those documents are also different. It is true that the plaintiffs and defendants are claiming title over different documents and the title deeds of their predecessors are also entirely different. While the defendant’s prior title deed is Ext.B3 sale deed of the year 1088 ME, the plaintiffs prior title deed is Exts.B11 of 1116 ME. The executants of those documents are also different. At the time of evidence, it is also revealed that the plaint schedule property is not a part of the property covered by Ext.B3, the title deed of the predecessors of the defendants. However, the survey number of the properties claimed by the plaintiffs and defendants are the same. 23. The extent of property claimed by the 1 st defendant as per Ext.B6 (A1) gift deed is 10.500 cents. The plaint schedule item No.1 consists of 1.16 ares, item No.2 consists of 1.85 ares and item No.3 consists of 37 Sq.meters. Admittedly, in a shop room situated in item No.3 property, the 1 st defendant is conducting a shop. According to the plaintiffs, the 1 st defendant is a tenant in the said shop room under the 4 th plaintiff. However, in the written statement, the above pleading in the plaint was stoutly denied by the 1 st defendant and he claimed that he is the owner of the said shop room in the light of Ext.B6 gift deed executed by the 2 nd defendant. During the course of the evidence, when the 1 st defendant was examined as DW2 he had to concede that he started occupying the side shop room in continuation of his father in the year 1981 and that his father started occupying the said room in 1971 as a tenant of Thankamani, the mother of the 5 th plaintiff. 24. Ext.A11 is the certified copy of the petition in RCP 2/2012 filed by the 5 th plaintiff for fixation of fair rent. Ext.A12 is the objection filed by the 1 st defendant herein in the above RCP. Ext.A13 is the certified copy of the additional objection filed by him in the said RCP. In Ext.A12 and A13 the 1 st defendant has specifically contended that his father obtained the said shop room on rent from the mother of the 5 th plaintiff Thankamma and that after the death of his father, he continues to be the tenant in the said shop room since 1981. 25. In Ext.A12 and A13 the 1 st defendant has specifically contended that his father obtained the said shop room on rent from the mother of the 5 th plaintiff Thankamma and that after the death of his father, he continues to be the tenant in the said shop room since 1981. 25. As argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, admissions if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. ( Ammini Tharakan and Others v. Lily Jacob and Others , 2013 (4) KHC 599 and Sainaba Umma & Anr. v. Moideenkutty & Ors., 1987 KLJ 728 ). 26. In the light of the above admission in Exts.A12 and A13 objections, his contention at present that he is not the tenant of the 5 th plaintiff does not hold good. On the other hand, from the above evidence it is to be held that the 1 st defendant is occupying the shop room situated in plaint schedule item No.3 as the tenant of the 4 th plaintiff. 27. In this context it is to be noted that in the written statement the defendants contended that the plaintiffs have no title over the plaint schedule properties and that plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3 properties are portions of the property obtained by the grandfather of the 2 nd defendant by name Veeramony Ayyan as per Ext.B3. Further, from the evidence of DW2 and from the manner of execution of Ext.B6 also it is revealed that the defendants are raising a claim over the plaint schedule properties. It is because of the very same reason the 1 st defendant who was the tenant of the mother of the 5 th plaintiff after the execution of Ext.B6 started claiming that he is the owner of the property in his possession. Therefore, from the nature of the contentions raised by the 1 st defendant itself it can be seen that, the property claimed by the 1 st defendant as per Ext.B6 gift deed is nothing but plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3 covered by Exts.A2, A3 and A4 sale deeds. 28. Though as per Ext.B6 the 2 nd defendant gifted 10.500 cents of property to the 1 st defendant, the said gift deed specifically states that the 2 nd defendant was not in possession of any inch of property, out of the above 10.500 cents. 28. Though as per Ext.B6 the 2 nd defendant gifted 10.500 cents of property to the 1 st defendant, the said gift deed specifically states that the 2 nd defendant was not in possession of any inch of property, out of the above 10.500 cents. On the other hand, Ext.B6 only authorises the donee to obtain possession of the said property. The above admission in Ext.B6 (Ext.A1) that the donor is not in possession of the property covered by the gift deed also substantiates the plaintiff's case that the property claimed by the defendant is none other than the plaint schedule property. 29. In Ext.B11 and Ext.A6, the prior documents of the plaintiffs the northern property is shown as the property of Veeramony Ayyan. It means that the property claimed by the plaintiffs situates on the southern side of the property claimed by the defendants. In Exts.A8 and A9 documents also the northern boundary is shown as Padmanabha Pilla’s property. Therefore from the description of Exts.A8 and A9 also it can be seen that the property claimed by the defendants is on the southern side of the property belonging to the predecessors of the plaintiffs. From the description of property in Ext.B3 it can be seen that the northern portion of the property described therein was already sold to Subramanya Ayyar. Therefore, it can be presumed that out of the 75 cents of property belonged to Andi Ayyan, the northern portion was already assigned to Subramanya Ayyar and the remaining southern portion alone was assigned in favour of the grandfather of the 2 nd defendant. Since the extent assigned to Subramanya Ayyar is not mentioned in Ext.B3, the remaining extent available while executing Exts.A8 and A9 could not be ascertained. Therefore, the version in Exts.A8 and A9 that the actual extent available was only 15.500 can only be believed. Since as per Exts.A8 and A9 the entire property belonged to the 2 nd defendant and his children was assigned, touching the boundary walls on the north and south and including those boundary walls, without leaving any balance property, it can be seen that now the remaining property available at the spot is only the plaint schedule property. 30. In Ext.B6 the property claimed by the defendants is part of the property comprised in Thandaper No.411 in Sy.Nos.814/20/1 and 814/20/2. 30. In Ext.B6 the property claimed by the defendants is part of the property comprised in Thandaper No.411 in Sy.Nos.814/20/1 and 814/20/2. The boundaries of the above property shown in Ext.B6 is the Municipal road on the east, the property assigned by Andi Ayyan to Subramanya Ayyan on the north, the remaining property owned by the 1 st defendant and the property assigned to Thressiamma Cherian on South. The above description shows that the property covered by Ext.B6 is a portion which situates on the southern side of the property covered by Exts.A8 and A9. From the description of Exts.A8 and A9 it is also revealed that there was no property remaining in the possession of the 2 nd defendant and his children after the execution of Exts.A8 and A9. On a perusal of Exts.A8 and A9 and B6 it can be seen that in Exts.A8 and A9, the northern property was shown as the property of the predecessors of the plaintiffs while in Ext.B6 the northern property was shown as the property covered by Exts.A8 and A9. Therefore in Ext.B6 the attempt made by the defendants is to show that still there is some property belonging to the 1 st defendant in between the properties of the plaintiffs and the property covered by Exts.A8 and A9. As I have already noted above, after the execution of Exts.A8 and A9, no property was there in the possession of the 2 nd defendant and his children and as such, Ext.B6 created subsequently does not confer any title over any property in favour of the 2 nd defendant. In short, Ext.B6 is seen executed when the 2 nd defendant had no property left in him after the execution of Exts.A8 and A9. It is also revealed that after executing Ext.B6 in favour of the 1 st defendant, the 1 st defendant renounced his character as tenant of the mother of the 5 th plaintiff and claimed title over the room occupied by him as a tenant and claimed further title over the plaint schedule properties belonging to the plaintiffs as per Ext.A2 to A4 documents. Therefore it can be seen that the apprehension raised by the plaintiffs that the defendants are disputing the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties and also attempting to raise claim over the plaint schedule property by misusing Ext.B6 is genuine and well founded. 31. Therefore it can be seen that the apprehension raised by the plaintiffs that the defendants are disputing the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties and also attempting to raise claim over the plaint schedule property by misusing Ext.B6 is genuine and well founded. 31. In this context, it is also to be noted that, though in Exts.A8 and A9 it is stated that the 2 nd defendant along with his children are the owners of property covered by those documents, Ext.B6 is seen executed by the 2 nd defendant alone, excluding his children. Moreover, in this case the 2 nd defendant is represented by the 1 st defendant as his Power of Attorney holder and evidence was also adduced by the 1 st defendant on behalf of the 2 nd defendant. 32. It is true that in Ext.C2 Commission report, the Commissioner has measured 75 cents of property mentioned in Ext.B3 and also 10.500 cents claimed by the defendants as per Ext.B6 document. However, as I have already noted above, as per Ext.B3, the grandfather of the 2 nd defendant did not obtain 75 cents of property and after execution of Exts.A8 and A9, there was no property left with the 2 nd defendant and his children. Therefore, Ext.C2 Commission report and plan will not in any way help the defendants to substantiate their case. In the light of the above discussions I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court so as to call for any interference. Points answered accordingly. In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs. All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.