The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a party to prove a valid title and possession of the property in a suit for title and possession. Additionally, the interpretation of statutory provisions, such as S.2E of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1967, was crucial in determining the applicability of the law to the case.

1. This appeal is by defendants 1 to 3 in a suit for declaration of title and possession, or, in the alternative, for recovery, of landed property.

2. The plaint schedule describes the suit property as 10 acres in the 138 acres 30 cents being R. S. No. 48 of Keezhur amsom. But, at the trial he confined his claim to 7 acres 20 cents which is marked as plot 'A' in Ext. Cl, the commissioner's plan, which plot only will therefore be referred to hereinafter as the suit property. Plaintiff claims the suit property to belong to the Kavut Parambil Ganapathi Devaswom, whose uralers are defendants 4 to 7, from whom he claims to have obtained a lease evidenced by the Marupat Ext. B35 (Copy is Ext. Al) executed by himself on February 23, 1948. It recites lease of 20 acres of land and its prior possession to have been with plaintiff under an oral lease of the year 1935 (1110 M. E.) The plaintiff alleges to have been obstructed by defendants 1 and 2 when he put up a shed on the property in 1953, which culminated in proceedings under S.145 Crl. P. C. before the First Class Magistrate, Tellicherry, who declared the letter to be in possession of the suit property and a Criminal Revision Petition preferred by him against that order to have failed in the High Court. He has therefore instituted this suit.

The defendants 1 to 3 contended the entire R. S. No. 48 to have belonged to the Keezhur Edom, (tarvad) and been allotted to the 3rd defendant's tavazhi in partition under the final decree Ext. B126 dated January 2, 1946, and delivered to him through Court on February 26, 1948, as evidenced by the delivery report Ext. B129. Soon thereafter 3rd defendant had to institute O. S. No. 96 of 1948 against one Mayan who trespassed on a part of th6 Survey number, immediately west of the suit plot, under cover of a lease from the uralers of the Devaswom, the present defendants 4 to 7 who were made co-defendants therein. That suit was decreed for possession with damages and mesne profits, by the subordinate judge on 30th September 1953, and the appeal by defendants 4 to 7 was dismissed by the District Judge, on November 7, 1956 (vide Exts. B127 and B130). Defendants 1 to 3 assert that the entire R S. no. 48 was in th3 direct possession of the Edom before the partition suit, and with DW.12, the receiver appointed in the suit, during the suit, and with the 3rd defendant after date of Ext. B129 The 3rd defendant demised 35 acres in the Survey Number as per Ext B43 dated July 22,1949, to DW. 6, who assigned parts thereof on July 28, 1950, as per Exts. B44 and B45 to Vasurnathi Amma and Lakshmikutty Amma, from whom defendants 1 and 2 have obtained assignments on November 18,1953 as per Exts. B46 and B47 and entered possession. They denied the plaintiff to have possession of the property or any right thereto.

The Subordinate Judge held the Devaswom to have no title to the property, found its title with the 3rd defendant, and possession with the plaintiff even before date of Ext, Al and decreed possession to the plaintiff with mesne profits. On appeal, the District Judge affirmed it. Defendants 1 to 3 have come up in second appeal.

3. Obviously this is a suit of the nature contemplated by Art.47 of the Limitation Act, 1908, where the prayer has to be for recovery of the property. The decree passed by the Courts below is for recovery of property. Though in the plaint an allegation of possession with the plaintiff and a prayer for declaration of his possession have been made, it is admitted that, on cancellation of the stay issued in the revision case, the defendants 1 and 2 plucked cashewnuts worth Rs. 250/-from the suit property. That is clear admission that, following the order of the Magistrate under S.145 Crl. P. C., the defendants 1 and 2 have entered possession of the suit property. This suit must therefore be reckoned as one for recovery of landed property from the possession of defendants 1 to. 3. The plaintiff can succeed only on proof of a valid t