PRABHUL Vs. TOMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise from the common judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Thodupuzha in A.S. Nos.87 and 86 of 2010, respectively arising from the common judgment and decree in O.S. Nos.165 of 2007 and 173 of 2007, respectively of the court of learned Munsiff, Thodupuzha. O.S. No.165 of 2007 is filed by the appellant (in both the appeals) for a decree for specific performance of Ext.A1, agreement for sale executed by the 1st respondent. O.S. No.173 of 2007 is filed by the 2nd respondent against the appellant and others for a decree for prohibitory injunction claiming to be in possession of the property on the strength of title. Learned Munsiff decreed O.S. No.173 of 2007 and dismissed O.S. No.165 of 2007. In the respective appeals arising from the said suits, learned District Judge confirmed the decision of learned Munsiff. Hence these Second Appeals. Parties are referred to as arrayed in R.S.A. No.940 of 2012 Exhibit A1 is the agreement for sale relied on by the appellant for claiming a decree for specific performance in O.S. No.165 of 2007 and to resist O.S. No.173 of 2007.

(2.) THE suit property originally belonged to one Ratheesh who executed Ext.B7, sale deed dated 23.05.2001 to one Jameela. Jameela executed Ext.B8, assignment deed dated 25.07.2002 in favour of the 1st respondent who in turn transferred the property to the 2nd respondent as per Ext.B1. Thus the 2nd respondent claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit property.

(3.) THE trial court found that due execution of Ext.A1 is not proved, upheld Ext.B1, assignment deed in favour of the 2nd respondent and accordingly dismissed O.S. No.165 of 2007 and decreed O.S. No.173 of 2007. The first appellate court confirmed the same. Hence these Second Appeals.