IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 AFA.No. 41 of 1996() ------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN AS.453/1991 Dated 30/11/1995 OS.22/1986 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA) .................... APPELLANT(S)/5th DEFENDENT ------------------------------------ KARUNAKARAN, S/O.KOCHU, CHERAPLACKAL HOUSE, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH ARAYAKUNNEL RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4. ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BHAVANI, W/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, CHEKALAKAPARAMBIL, ARIJUZHA KARA, MANAKADU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. 2. RAMAN, S/O. KOCHU, CHERAPLACKAL HOUSE, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 3. GOVINDAN, S/O.KOCHU, -DO- -DO- -DO- 4. KRISHNAN, S/O. KOCHU, -DO- -DO- -DO- 5. RAVEENDRAN, S/O. KOCHU, -DO- -DO- -DO- R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM THIS APPEAL FROM FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010, ALONG WITH AFA NO. 46 OF 1996 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------- A.F.A.Nos.41 & 46 OF 1996 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.These appeals are directed against a common judgment in A.S.453/91 and A.S.419/91, which arose respectively from O.S.22/86 and O.S.73/87. 2.O.S.22/86 is a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of two items of properties with mesne profits. There are five defendants in that suit. The 5th defendant who is the brother of the plaintiff alone contested the suit. 3.O.S.73/87 is filed by the 5th defendant in O.S.22/86. He sought specific performance of an agreement for sale; which agreement was already set up in the written statement in O.S.22/86. His contention was that the sister was given gold ornaments worth Rs.20,000/- at the time of her marriage, i.e., AFA.41/96 & 46/96 2 125 gms. and 100 mgs., and that he is entitled to the property in question. 4.Reversing the decision of the trial court, learned single Judge found that the defendant in O.S.73/87 is liable to return 125 gms. and 100 mgs. of gold ornaments or to pay its value calculated at the rate of Rs.318/- per gram and on default, there will be a charge over the plaint schedule properties for realisation of the said amount. She was refused mesne profits in O.S.22/86. 5.The evidence on record has been appreciated by the learned single Judge and on facts and circumstances, it has been found categorically that the admissions made by the plaintiff in O.S.22/86 (sister of the 5th defendant) was sufficient to hold that the relief, to the extent granted, is sustainable. We are in complete agreement with the said view on examination of the entire evidence on record. AFA.41/96 & 46/96 3 In the result, these appeals fail. They are accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.Q.BARKATH ALI, Judge. kkb.17/09.