IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 RSA.No. 661 of 2009() --------------------- AS.202/2002 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA OS.525/2000 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/3RD DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------- SELVARAJAN, S/O. KOCHUKUNJAN, KODANGAVILA, ARATHANVILA VEEDU, KAVALAKULAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 2 & 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE, S/O. MANUVEL, V.L.BHAVAN, VELLANGHAL, EDAVAL DESOM, KEEZHAROOR VILLAGE. (INCORRECTLY STATED IN THE JUDGMENT AS DEAD INSTEAD OF R2) 2. JAMES NADAR, S/O. MOSA NADAR, KUZHIVILAKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, CHEMKOTTUKONAM, NOW RESIDING AT METHATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAVAL DESOM, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM. 3. YABANEESAR, S/O. KOCHUKUNJAN, KODANGAVILA ARATHANVILA VEEDU, KAVALAKULAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- R.S.A.NO.661 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The 3rd defendant in O.S.No.525 of 2000 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Neyyattinkara is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.202/2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. The suit was filed for setting aside Ext.A4 sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for and was confirmed by the appellate court. Hence the second appeal. 2. It is the plaintiff’s case that the plaint schedule property which belonged to the plaintiff has been obtained by Ext.A1 gift deed on 20/4/1972. The first defendant in the suit who is the mother’s sister of the plaintiff had executed Ext.A1 gift deed. Long thereafter in the year 1984 at the instance of second defendant who is the husband of the first defendant gift deed was cancelled by executing a revocation deed. On getting knowledge about the cancellation deed, the plaintiff filed a suit before the Munsiff’s Court, Neyyattinkara as O.S.No.929/1984 for declaration of his title and to declare the cancellation deed as void. The suit was decreed on 29/11/1986. The appeal filed by the first defendant is dismissed. The present suit was filed for setting aside the sale deed executed by the first R.S.A.NO.661 of 2009 2 defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant on the strength of the cancellation deed. The defendants have contested the suit. The defendants 1 and 2 contended that they have every right to execute Ext.A4 sale deed since the gift deed has not taken effect. Therefore the revocation of the gift deed is valid. The 3rd defendant who is the purchaser of the property interalia contended that he is the purchaser for value and therefore the sale deed is not liable to be cancelled. The courts below considered the issues on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides. Exts.A1 and A2 are rightly relied on by the courts below. The courts below held that the gift deed having been taken into effect, the first defendant has no manner of right to cancel the gift deed or to execute sale deeds in favour of 3rd parties. The courts below concurrently held that the Ext.A4 is a document executed by a person having no transferable interest in the property. It follows the finding that the Ext.A4 sale deed is void. 3. The appellant had contended that the courts below ought to have held that he is a bonafide purchaser for value. The trial court disbelieved his evidence and repelled contentions stating that his version that he has no knowledge regarding Exts.A1 and A2 case cannot be believed at all. The evidence in support of the appellant’s case was considered and concluded R.S.A.NO.661 of 2009 3 that the evidence is not sufficient to prove the 3rd defendant case that he is a bonafide purchaser. The appellate court also arrived at the very same conclusions on the basis of facts and circumstances and the evidence. The views taken, findings entered and the decree passed are solely based on the evidence adduced by the courts. No grounds are made out for interference. The decision of the courts below is solely based on the facts, evidence and circumstances. . The findings arrived are purely based on facts and the view taken by the trial court and appellate court are not liable to be interfered with for any reasons. I find no reason to invoke the jurisdiction under section 100 of the C.P.C. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. This appeal fails and accordingly dismissed in limine. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE skj.