Appellants are defendants in a suit for injunction filed by the respondents in this appeal. Appellant No.1 is a Mosque and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are its President and Secretary. Respondents land 2 are husband and wife and the 3rd respondent is the father of the second respondent and power of attorney holder of respondents 1 and 2.

2. The three questions of law formulated and on which notice has been ordered in the appeal are the following:

"(i) From the facts of this case, is not the suit bad for non joinder of the state as a party in the suit?

(ii) In the absence of a claim for easement, can a plaintiff sue for the relief of injunction without alleging at least possession over the property with respect to which plaintiff prays for injunction against the defendants?

(Hi) In a case of dispute regarding existence of a way and the use of the same by the plaintiff, can a finding be entered discarding the oral evidence in the case?

3. The brief facts necessary for deciding the questions of law formulated in the appeal are: plaint A schedule property, 121/2 cents in extent, admittedly belongs to plaintiffs 1 and 2 and it is in the possession and management of the 3rd plaintiff. Plaint B schedule property is a strip of land which along with plaint A schedule property belonged originally to the maternal grand father of the second plaintiff. According to plaintiffs, plaint B schedule property measuring 2 cents in extent along with a further extent of 31/2 cents of land forming altogether 51/2 cents, was acquired by the Government from the second plaintiff s maternal grand father for the purpose of forming the National Highway 47 lying on the western side of Plaint A & B schedule properties. Plaint B schedule property, according to plaintiffs, is now lying as a puramboke land on the western side of the plaint A schedule property and they are using it as a passage to have access to plaint A schedule property and the residential building therein from N.H. 47. Plaintiffs have stated that the defendants are trying to illegally obstruct them from using the B schedule property as a passage and has filed the suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the use of the plaint B schedule property for having access to N.H. 47 from plaint A schedule property. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement on behalf of the first defendant denying all the material allegations contained in the plaint and contending that the Mosque is in possession of the levelled portion of the plaint B schedule property which lies on the southern side of the portion which lies as a pond. They denied totally the claim of the plaintiffs that they are using the plaint B schedule property as a passage to have access to plaint A schedule property from N.H. 47. Further the defendants without either expressly denying or admitting the allegation that plaint B schedule property is a puramboke land lying by the side of the road, have contended that the State is a necessary party on the basis of the allegations in the plaint and wanted the suit to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties.

4. Learned Munsiff found that the State of Kerala was a necessary party to the suit, that the suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties and that the plaintiffs have not established any legal right over the plaint schedule property and was not entitled to get the relief of injunction prayed for and accordingly dismissed the suit. Learned Munsiff also found that the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs have got another public road on the eastern side of their property is not established in the case. On appeal the learned District Judge found that the State of Kerala is not a necessary party and that the plaintiffs have primafacie established their case that they are using the plaint B schedule property as a passage to have access from plaint A schedule property to the N.H. 47 on its western side and that the defendants have no right