1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit for permanent injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the property on the strength of their title. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the appeal was also not successful.

2. The plaint schedule property along with other properties belonged to the tavazhi of defendants, Kumaran the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and others. Kumaran was the karanavan of the tavazhi. There was a partition on 19-3-1969 evidenced by Ext A-1 and the plaint schedule property which is item 2 of Schedule.2 of Ext. A-1 was allotted to Rohini, sister of Kumaran. It is the case of the plaintiff's that the property was allotted to Rohini till her death, that she hadno right of alienation and that the absolute right vested in her brother Kumaran. Kumaran predeceased Rohini who died in 1978. Plaintiffs claim recovery of the property on the strength of title in case defendants are found to be in possession.

3. Defendants contended that Rohini had acquired absolute right in the property under Ext. A-1, that she had executed a will in favour of the Ist defendant and that the plaintiffs have no mann