1. The question is whether the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that they were in possession of the properties in suit at the time they brought the suit. The first court found that they had not and dismissed their suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from entering on the properties and dispossessing them. The lower appellate court found the contrary and has decreed the suit. Hence this appeal by the 3rd defendant who alone of the seven defendants contested the suit.

2. It is the admitted case that the properties were in the possession of Kesava Kurup, the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of plaintiffs 2 to 6, at the time of his death in 1122 M.E. (1946-47 A.D.) Kesava Kurup had got the properties under Ext. A dated 4-7-1116 (18-2-1941), a Nischaya Udampadi, entered into between the members of his joint (Marumakkathayam) family. Under this deed, the properties in suit were allotted to Kesava Kurup and his brother, and, after the death of his brother, Kesava Kurup was in sole possession and enjoyment. Ext. A, apart from calling itself a Nischaya Udampadi and not a Bhagapatram, expressly states that the allotment of properties made therein betwee