1. Appellants are the defendants. Plaintiffs suit was decreed finding that the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction against the defendants. This has been confirmed by the Sub Judge in the appeal.

2. Plaintiff filed the suit alleging that the defendants are residing in his house as permitted by him and that they should be directed to vacate the premises. Plaintiff gifted his 1/3 right in the property as per Ext.A-1 in 1968 to his sister (first defendant) and his brother. It is his case that as per Ext.A-6 surrender deed his sister and brother released their right to him and thus he become the absolute owner of the property. He permitted his sister to reside in the house along with her children. Defendants denied Ext.A-6 surrender deed and contended that the first defendant has been residing in the building since her marriage. It is also contended that they follow Mappila Marumakkathayam Law and that the plaintiff being the karanavan of the thavezhi has only fractional right in the property. Plaint allegation that the defendants are only licensees in also refuted.

3. The Courts below rejected all the contentions of the defendants and held that they are only lic