The State, on behalf of the Sreepadom Palace, has filed this appeal. The State was the first defendant in the court below. The plaintiff and the second defendant are brothers. The suit was for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the plaint properties and to set aside the kuthakapattom lease of the plaint properties, granted by the Sreepadom to the second defendant. The plaintiff and the second defendant are members of a Hindu family. The second defendant is the senior-most male member. The plaintiff stated that the plaint properties were purchased by his grand-father in 1055 under Ext. A, and that the Sreepadom had no right in these properties except for realising the tax assigned to the Sreepadom by a wrong direction in the settlement with which the plaintiff was not concerned. The second defendant remained exparte. The State, the first defendant in the case, on behalf of the Sreepadom contended that the plaintiff or the 2nd defendant had no title to the same, that the properties belonged to the Sreepadom, that the tenure of the properties was properly described in the Settlement Register, that the same could not be disturbed, that

the second defendant was in poss