1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants is this second appeal, had filed a suit for declaration of their lease-hold right and possession in respect of plaint property and for consequential injunction to restrain the 25th defendant from disposing them.

2. The property consists of 114 acres 84 cents and forms part of a larger extent of 297 acres 67 cents comprised in Sy. No. 545/17B of Chennamkari village. The property belonged to Kakkattu tarwad. The grandfather of plaintiffs 1 to 8, one Varkey Thomman is alleged to have been in possession and cultivating the whole block as lessee of the jenmi tarwad from 1097 onwards, the rental of the property being 11/2 paras of paddy be Kalloorkadan measure for each para of paddy field. The plaint proceeds on the allegation that after the death of Varkey Thomman in 1117, the father of plaintiffs 1 to 8 was in possession. He died in 1957 when the plaintiffs succeeded him as lessees. There was a suit for partition in the jenmi tarwad as OS. 56/1102 of Quilon District Court, in which defendants 1 to 24, who are members of the jenmi tarwad were allotted 108 acres 90 cents. It is alleged that the defendants in the said partition suit were entitled to 174 acres 73 cents in the whole block. The jenmom right over 28 acres out of 108 acres 90 cents was purchased by plaintiffs and an area of 87 acres 9 cents of the leasehold was surrendered to some of the defendants in the partition suit. The 25th defendant in the present suit had been appointed Receiver in the above said partition suit. On a motion by the father of plaintiffs 1 to 8 not to allow the Receiver to disturb his possession as old lessee, it is alleged that this court ordered that he need pay only an enhanced pattom of 31/2 paras of paddy per para of paddy field. The plaintiffs' allegation in substance is that the plaintiffs' father continued in possession as old lessee as before. Valuable improvements are alleged to have been effected by plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest. The plaint schedule property is the oodukur right over 114 acres 84 cents. It is alleged that the plaintiffs are entitled to fixity of tenure under Act 1 of 1964, the leasehold right being allowed to continue. The suit is brought as it was apprehended that the 25th defendant Receiver was attempting to disturb the plaintiffs' possession. The contesting defendants denied the leasehold right and possession set up by the plaintiffs. Their stand was that the plaintiffs were only lessees under the Receiver and not entitled to get fixity of tenure.

3. Both the courts below have held in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. This has given rise to the second appeal. Proceedings were pending before the Land Tribunal, Alleppey under S.31 of Act 1 of 1964 for fixation of fair rent. The application for fixation of fair rent was dismissed holding that there was no landlord-tenant relationship. It is states in the appeal memo that a revision from this fixation of fair rent had been filed before this court as C.R.P. 708/ 71 which had been dismissed. The main contentions that Sri. V. Harihara Iyer, learned counsel for the appellants raised in this second appeal are:

(i) the lower appellate court has erred in holding that a co-owner who is in possession of part of the joint property cannot claim to be a lessee of co-ownership property;

(ii) the lower appellate court has again erred in holding that as the application for fixation of fair rent has been dismissed by the Land Tribunal holding that the plaintiffs are not lessees which decision had been confirmed in appeal and subsequently in revision by (he High Court the plaintiffs cannot claim to be tenants entitled to benefits under Act 1 of 1964; 'and

(iii) the plaintiffs in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the evidence ought to have been found entitled to fixity of tenure.

We shall deal with these questions one by one:

(i) Whether a co-owner who is in possession of part of the joint property