N. Viswanathan, Viswasangeetham, Thathammunna Muri, Nooranad. P.O, Nooranad Village From Kuttiyil Vadakkethil Veedu, Kidangayam Muri Nooranad Village vs K. Ammini, Kaleeckalayyathu, Naduvile Muri, Padanilam. P.O, Nooranadu. Pin-690529 and K.K. Dayal, Saranga, Ottukal Theruvu, Kaithamukku, Trivandrum, From Kaleeckalalyyathu Naduvile Muri, Padanilam, P.O Pin-690529, Nooranad Village

V. Chitambaresh, J

The suit is one for setting aside a sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff is the mother, the first defendant is her son and the second defendant is the assignee. The property originally belonged to the husband of the plaintiff. The same was bequeathed in favour of the first defendant reserving a life interest in favour of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff alleges that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is sham and intended to harm her. The court below initially restrained the defendants from entering into the plaint schedule property or making any alteration therein in I.A. No. 6464/2008. Thereafter the second defendant sought permission to carry out repairs in the building in I.A. No. 1873/2008. The trial court passed an order on consent permitting the second defendant to carry out repairs. This was directed to be done under the strict supervision of the Advocate Commissioner.

The modified order passed as above was challenged by the plaintiff in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The lower appellate court has now set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the matter. The question whether the building requires repairs or not has been directed to be considered afresh. This order is challenged by the second defendant assignee in this Original Petition.

The plaintiff has conceded before the trial court that the repairs can be carried out under the supervision of the Advocate Commissioner. He even offered to meet one half of the commission batta in this regard. It was no longer open to the plaintiff to impugn this consent order in an appeal. The lower appellate court erred in setting at naught the order of the trial court passed in that regard.

The plaintiff contends that she has a life interest as per the reservation in the ''Will'' executed by her husband. The second defendant may oust her if he is permitted to carry out the repairs. The second defendant now undertakes that he will not harm the enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff in any manner. The repairs will be carried out without impairing her possession and enjoyment of the property. This statement of the second defendant is recorded.

The trial court shall fix a time limit for the Advocate Commissioner to complete the exercise of repairs. The repairs shall be done under the strict supervision of the Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner shall also see that the residence of the plaintiff is not adversely affected. The repairs shall be completed within the time fixed by the court below under the supervision of the Advocate Commissioner. The batta payable to the Advocate Commissioner shall be paid by the second defendant assignee as offered by him now. The court below shall make every endeavour to dispose of the suit itself expeditiously. More than four years have elapsed since the preferment of the suit. The suit shall be disposed of within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

No further directions are called for. The Original Petition is disposed of.