The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly S.146, S.21, S.47(1), and O.21, R.32(5) in determining the entitlement to recovery of possession, misjoinder of parties, and the operation of res judicata.

1. This is an appeal by defendants 2,11,17,19 to 24, 31, 35, 38, 46 and 104 in 0. S. No. 65 of 1952 of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry. The suit was for the recovery of possession of the items of property described in the schedule to the plaint on the strength of the plaintiff's title, of Rs. 1200 as mesne profits for the three years immediately preceding the suit and of future mesne profits at the same rate, i. e., Rs. 400 per year.

2. The contentions of the plaintiff are summarised as follows in Para.2 of the judgment under appeal;

"The plaint schedule- properties belong in Jenm to Kizhakkadath Kovilakam. These properties were in the possession of Pakaadavath Chandu on kanom Kuzhikanom right under the Kovilakam as per kanom document dated 5 51919 The rights of Chandu were acquired by the plaintiff by assignments dated 3 41943 and 23121944 from the heirs of Chandu. The plaintiff obtained a renewal from Kizhakkedath Kovila-kom as per document dated 27 41943- The plaintiff instituted O. S.4 of 1945 on the file of this court for a declaration of his title and for a permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 12 and others when they attempted to tresspass upon these properties. In that suit, this court held that the plaintiff has got title to the plaint schedule properties and issued a permanent injunction against those defendants. At the time of that suit, the properties were in the possession of Kayyanna amsom adhikari as Receiver appointed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kozhikode under S.146 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Receiver surrendered his possession to the plaintiff after the decree. After the said decree, defendants 1 to 12 trespassed upon the plaint schedule properties and also persuaded the remaining defendants to trespass upon property. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover possession with past profits. The plaintiff estimates the mesne profits at Rs. 400-0-0 per year"-

3. Ext. A-41 dated 5-5-1919 is a copy of the marupat executed by Chandu in favour of the Kovilakom. Ext A-2 is the assignment deed of 3 4 1943. One of the heirs of Chandu was not a party to that document. He assigned his rights to one Mohammed and the document of 23121944 mentioned by the judge is Ext. A-11, a deed of surrender executed by the said Mohammad in favour of the plaintiff. The document of 27- 4-1943 is Ext. A-6.

4. All the 14 appellants filed written statements contesting the plaintiff's claim. Of these only 4 defendants 2,11, 24 and 104 were parties to O. S. No. 4 of 1945.

5. Ext. A-39 is the plan prepared by the Commissioner in O. S. No. 4 of 1945 and Ext. A-40 is a copy of his report, Exts. A-41 and A-43 dated 17- 31948 are copies of the judgment and decree of the trial court in that suit and Ext. A-42 dated 25 91950 is a copy of the judgment in the appeal filed by the plaintiff before the District judge of North Malabar, A. S. No. 297 of 1948.

6. In Ext. A-41 the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry held:

"There will be a decree declaring the plaintiff's right to the plots marked as A2, B, BI, B2, A3 (a), the portion of Cl to the north of Cherupuzha, plots D1, E2, F, F1 and F2 in the commissioner's plan, Ext. A-39 and an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 30 from trespassing on these plots".

and in Ext. A-42 the District Judge said:

"On my finding above, this appeal is allowed in part and the lower court's decree is modified by giving the plaintiff a decree for declaration and injunction with regard to plot Al as forming part of item 1 in the plaint and the plot described as 150 acres in extent in the plan lying to the east of plots E2 and B to the south of plots C series and west of plot F2 as part of items 5 in the kanom kuzhikanom demise. In other respects the decree of the lower court is confirmed".

Thematteer was taken up before the High Court of Madras, Both the second appeal S. A. No. 1909 of 1951 and the memorandum of objections were dismissed. (See Exts. A-53 and A-54)

7. The plaintiff wa