BABY HAZEENA Vs. NADEERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Attingal in O.S. No.40 of 2006 confirmed by the learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S. No.579 of 2010. First respondent filed the suit against the second respondent-5th defendant, appellants 1 and 2-defendants 3 and 4 and the deceased first defendant (third appellant is the legal representative of deceased first defendant) for declaration of her title over the suit property, eviction and for prohibitory injunction. First respondent contended that suit property and building therein belonged to Fazeela Beegum, daughter of Rahuma Beevi and her maternal aunt, Azeema Beevi as per Exts.A5 and A7 and that first respondent purchased the suit property and building from the said Fazeela Beegum as per Ext.A1, assignment deed No.3649 of 2005 on 03.09.2005. It is the further case of first respondent that the deceased first defendant and her daughter (first appellant) were residing in the building in the suit property and they shifted residence on the request of the then owner of the property on 01.09.2005 (followed by Ext.A1, assignment deed No.3649 of 2005 dated 03.09.2005 in favour of the first respondent). Pursuant to Ext.A1, first respondent took possession of the suit property and building. While so, deceased first defendant and others after filing a caveat in the Munsiff's court, Varkala trespassed into the building on 31.12.2005 and started residing there. Hence the suit.

(2.) APPELLANTS 1 and 2 and the deceased first defendant contended that the suit property belonged to Rahuma Beevi (mother of Faseela Beegum who executed Ext.A1) and that appellants 1 and 2 and deceased first defendant are in possession of the property and building since the last 50 years. Faseela Beegum (who executed Ext.A1) went to Singapore 38 years back and acquired the citizenship of that country. They also contended that documents relied on by the first respondent are sham. A further contention is that Rahuma Bbeevi or her maternal uncle has not executed any document and at any rate with free consent. A plea of adverse possession also is raised.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for first respondent who filed a caveat has contended that title of first respondent is proved by oral and documentary evidence and that none of the contentions advanced by the appellants in this appeal would stand and much less any substantial question of law is involved. Further contention is that the plea of adverse possession cannot stand in the light of evidence given by D.W.1 (first defendant). In response, learned counsel for appellants contended that first defendant was not hail and healthy to give rational answers to the questions put to her and that evidence of D.W.2 has to be looked into.