The suit property came to the share of his daughter, one Lakshmikutty.
This Suit was filed against the predecessor in title of the Appellant herein.
One of the decree holders got this property attached in execution of his decree.
There would number be two such documents executed simultaneously unless the intention was that the property was to be reconveyed to the vendor i.e. Krishnan Nair.
For the sake of companyvenience this Deed of Assignment will hereinafter be referred to as Exhibit A 7.
On 27th January, 1976 the daughter of Krishnan Nair field Suit No.
A 6, was a close relative of Krishnan Nair.
Both parties went in Appeal.
The Sale Deed provided that Krishnan Nair was to receive a companysideration of Rs.
A 5 was a genuine document and that it was number a sham document.
Parameswaran Nair filed objection claiming to be owner of the property by virtue of Sale Deed executed in his favour.
The trial Court, however, found that the predecessor had spent companysiderable amounts and that it was necessary to take accounts between the parties.
The Executing Court held that the property companytinued to remain vested in Krishnan Nair.
1,200/ .
Therefore, the trial Court refused to give possession to the daughter of Krishnan Nair.
On 14th February, 1952 Kochu Kunja Nair assigned his rights under Ext.
It must immediately be mentioned that the said Kochu Kunja Nair was a relative of Krishnan Nair.
This Agreement provided that Kesavan Channar would sell the suit property to Kochu Kunja Nair for a sum of Rs.
A 5 was genuine it automatically followed that Exts.
The Appellate Court disposed of both the Appeals by a companymon Judgment dated 19th April, 1980.
128 of 1976 for declaration that she was the owner of the property and for recovery of possession.
The Executing Court held that the Sale Deed was sham and bogus and that the same was a benami transaction.
The daughter of Krishnan Nair filed a Second Appeal in which the impugned Judgment dated 7th August, 1987 has been passed.
That Agreement was also registered simultaneously and immediately after the above mentioned Sale Deed.
198 of 1957 for specific performance of Ext.
Therefore, Lakshmikutty executed a Sale Deed in favour of the predecessor of the Appellant on 9th July, 1964.
The other heirs of Krishnan Nair were Defendants Nos.
This Deed of assignment in favour of the predecessor in title of the Appellant, i.e. Ext.
On this basis the Appellate Court held that Exts.
2 to 6 in that Suit.
The two documents were executed immediately one after the other and were also registered simultaneously one after the other.
For the sake of companyvenience hereinafter the Sale Deed in favour of Kesavan Channar will referred to as Exhibit A 5 and the Agreement to Sell in favour of Kochu Kunja Nair will be referred to as Exhibit A 6.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows In 1939 the suit property came to the share of one Krishnan Nair by virtue of a partition in his family.
However, Krishnan Nair was allowed to get back the property, provided he deposited the decretal amount, interest and companymission.
This Sale Deed was registered and Kesavan Channar was put in possession of the land.
A 6 and A 7 were number benami transactions and the predecessor of the Appellant had a right to the suit property.
A 6 and A 7 were also genuine.
Krishnan Nair, therefore, executed a Sale Deed in 1940 selling the land to his brother in law, one Parameswaran Nair.
That Petition was dismissed.
The trial Court held that as there was numberprayer to render accounts the Suit companyld number be decreed until accounts were taken and the predecessor of the Appellant was paid the amounts spent by him.
The trial Court held that the Sale Deed, Ext.
This further indicates that the predecessor of the Appellant was aware of the fact that the property was being sold to Kesavan Channar under Ext.
It must be mentioned that Krishnan Nair was made a party defendant to that Suit.
The trial Court held that Exts.
The predecessor in title took possession of the property through the Court on 18th July, 1967.
A 6 had been executed at the instance of the predecessor of the Appellant.
It is significant that the proposed purchaser, in Ext.
This makes it clear that Ext.
Therefore, the predecessor in title of the Appellant filed Suit No.
1,400/ after a period of 10 years, but before 11 years were over.
As the family of Krishnan Nair had been companyducting several chit funds a number of debts had been incurred in that business, several suits had been instituted and several decrees had been passed against the said Krishnan Nair.
The predecessor of the Appellant was aware that the property had been taken on behalf of Krishnan Nair and he himself took the property on behalf of Krishnan Nair probably due to the old age of Kochu Kunja Nair.
At the end of a period of 10 years Lakshmikutty did number sell the property as envisaged by the Agreement Ext.
He was Defendant No.
That Suit came to be decreed and the Appeal filed by Lakshmikutty was dismissed.
On 7th March, 1977 the Suit was decreed by the trial Court.
Thus the real fight was between the daughter of Krishnan Nair and the predecessor in title of the Appellant.
The trial Court held that the predecessor of the Appellant was merely a trustee of Krishnan Nair.
A 6 and A 7 were benami documents, which had been entered into on behalf of Krishnan Nair.
Before the period of 10 years had expired Kesavan Channar expired and there was a partition in his family.
A 6 was for and on behalf of Krishnan Nair.
A 6 was already 72 years of age.
The Appellate Court, therefore, dismissed the Suit.
Those heirs did number actively participate in that Suit.
Second Appeal filed by Lakshmikutty was also dismissed.
In order to raise money to so deposit Krishnan Nair then executed a Sale Deed in favour of one Kesavan Channar for Rs.
A 6 to the predecessor of the present Appellant.
A 7, by Kochu Kunja Nair shows that Ext.
The Appellate Court held that once the trial Court had companycluded that Ext.
On the same day and simultaneously with the execution of this Sale Deed another Agreement was executed by Kesavan Channar in favour of Kochu Kunja Nair.
A 5 with a companydition that the same would be sold back after a period of 10 years to Kochu Kunja Nair who was acting on behalf of Krishnan Nair.
1,200/ and the purchaser was to pay off the creditors.
It is also relevant that Kochu Kunja Nair at the time of execution of Ext.
N. VARIAVA,J. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 7th August, 1987 in Second Appeal No.
313 of 1981.
