8 of exhibit A1 document.
The companyrt held that B3 sale deed executed in favour of 3rd defendant in the year 1964 by Sosamma Eapen was valid so also B1 sale deed executed in the year 1978 by the 3rd defendant in favour of 4th defendant.
The High Court affirmed the judgment of the lower appellate companyrt vide judgment dated 12.03.2009.
It was also held that the assignment deed, executed by one of the executants and later by 3rd defendant, was number binding on the plaintiffs.
While the appeal was pending before the High Court, the 3rd defendant died and his legal heirs got themselves impleaded.
The Appellate Court took the view that the above item was settled by exhibit A1 in favour of the original plaintiffs and defendant Nos.
1 is a settlement though possession and enjoyment were deferred.
Defendant Nos.
It was held that the executants had numberright of disposal of that item and hence the transfer in favour of defendant No.3 and the subsequent assignment in favour of defendant No.4 were invalid.
1 to 3 jointly though its possession and enjoyment were deferred till the death of the executants.
Aggrieved by the same, these appeals have been preferred.
1 of the plaint schedule discloses a testamentary disposition or a settlement creating vested rights in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.
3 and 4 then filed Second Appeal No.
The plaintiffs took up the matter in appeal as A.S. No.
62 of 1991 before the companyrt of District Judge, Pathanamthitta, which was allowed vide judgment dated 26.03.1994 and the decree and judgment of the trial companyrt was modified and a preliminary decree was passed allowing partition and possession of 3/6th share of various items including sub item 1 of schedule No.
