The central legal point established in the judgment is that the plea of benami transactions by the plaintiff was not sustainable under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act of 1988, and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

The defendants in O.S.No. 265 of 1978 on the file of the Munsiff s Court, Cannanore are the appellants. The suit relates to 36 cents of land comprised in R.S.No. 69/6 in Elavoor Amsom, Chowa desom. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the plaint schedule property belongs to her. There is a "samadhi sthanam nagam" on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff claims title and possession of the entire 36 cents inclusive of this "samadhi stanam nagam". The plaintiff alleged that she had been in possession of the plaint schedule property for the last 50 years and the income from this property was set apart for the conduct of poojas and other ceremonies in the aforesaid samadhi stanam nagam. In 1967, an R.C.C. building was put up in the property at the place of worship according to the wishes of the v Gurunadhan". Religious ceremonies are being performed in the "samadhi". Plaintiff further alleged that the defendants have no title or possession over the property. After the filing of the written statement submitted by the defendants, plaintiff amended the plaint and added paragraph 5a to the plaint. An additional prayer for declaration was incorporated in the plaint. In para.5a of the plaint, plaintiff alleged that the document executed in favour of Chaliloth Krishnan on 4-12-1961 in respect of the plaint schedule property had not come into effect and as per that document the property was not intended to be conveyed to the said Krishnan and he never enjoyed or possessed the plaint schedule property. It is also alleged that the title deed, if any, of Krishnan was lost by adverse possession and limitation.

2. The defendants are the widow and son of Chaliloth Krishnan. They alleged that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Ramunni. He got the same in the partition effected as per final decree in O.S.No.123 of 1945. Ramunni died and his wife and children executed the sale deed in favour of Yesodha. The said Yesodha transferred the property on 4-12-1961 in favour of Krishnan, the husband of 1st defendant. Defendants also alleged that after the death of Krishnan the property devolved on the defendants and the plaintiff was never in possession of the property. They also contended that the deceased Krishnan had constructed the "samadhi stanam nagam" in the plaint schedule property and after the death of Krishnan, the plaintiff and her children tried to trespass into the property.

3.After the filing of the suit, plaintiff died and her children were impleaded as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. The Munsiff s Court decreed the suit in terms of the plaint and a permanent prohibitory injunction was issued against the defendants. Defendants filed appeal in before the Sub Court, Tellicherry and the learned Sub Judge held that the plaintiff had been in possession of the property and decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was confirmed. Defendants challenge the judgment and decree passed by the courts below.

4. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court found that the disputed property has been in the possession of the plaintiff. The finding regarding the possession has been entered on the basis of some documents produced by the plaintiffs. These documents showed that it was at the instance of P.W.I, the son of original plaintiff Madhavi, the "samadhi stanam nagam" was constructed in the eastern side of the property. On the basis of the documents produced by the plaintiff it was held that Krishnan, the husband of 2nd defendant had no possession over the land. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the finding of the courts below is clearly illegal and the same is not sustainable especially in view of the provision of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act of 1988, Act No. 45 of 1988.

5. Admittedly, the disputed plaint schedule property comprised in R.S.No. 69/6 of Chowadesomwas allotted to the heirs of one Chaliloth Ramunni as per final decree passed in O