The defendants 4 to 6, 8, 9, 12 to 19, 22 to 29, 31 and the legal representatives of the deceased defendant 32 are the appellants in this appeal which is directed against a decree of partition passed by the Subordinate Judges Court, Vadakara in a suit which was filed by the first respondent. Respondents 3 to 8 are respectively defendants 1 to 3, 7, 10, 11 and 20. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned Subordinate Judge formulated the following issues for trial;

1. Whether the plaintiff has got any right over the plaint schedule property and the house therein on the basis of the lease deed mentioned in the plaint ?

2. Whether the oral lease mentioned in the said lease deed is true?

3. Whether the executant of the lease deed had any right or possession to grant the lease ?

4. Whether the deceased Kadeesa was over in possession on the basis of the lease deed?

5. Whether defendants 4 to 15 are in occupation of the house as mentioned in the plaint ?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession or partition as prayed in the suit ?

7. Whether the shares claimed in the plaint are correct ?

8. Whether the right of plaintiff and D1 to 3 if any is lost by adverse possession and limitation ?

9. To what relief if any the plaintiff and D1 to 3 are entitled ?

10. What equities and reservation the parties are entitled to in the event of partition?

11. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?

12. What is the proper order as to costs?"

12. The parties did not adduce any oral evidence. On the side of the plaintiffs Ext.A1 was the solitary item of documentary evidence and on the side of the defendants (the present appellants) Exts.B1 to B2 were marked. Ext.A1 was a certified copy of the Kuzhikanam deed executed by Ammanath in favour of Kadeesa. Ext.A1 pertains to the plaint schedule property. Ext.B1 is a certified copy of the partition karar to which Mariyomma, mother of Ammanath is a party. Ext.B2 is a post suit document executed between some of the defendants interse. The learned Subordinate Judge would answer the preliminary issue as to whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties on account of the non junction of the other legal heirs of the Ammanath in favour of the plaintiff observing as follows;

"I do not find any force in this contention because as it is the validity of Ext. A1 lease deed is not challenged and there is no property to be devolved upon the other heirs of Ammanath and therefore I find that other heirs of Ammanath viz. Mammu, Hamsa and Mariyomma or their legal representatives are not necessary parties to this suit."

3. Issue Nos. 1 to 4 were considered together by the learned Sub Judge. Under these issues, the learned Judge found that there was no dispute as regards Mariyommas title over the plaint schedule property. On the death of Mariyomma, her interest in the property devolved in the ratio of 2/3 : 1/3 upon her son Ammanath and daughter Aliyumma. The learned Judge reiterated his finding that Ext.A1 is a valid lease of the entirety of Ammanaths rights in favour of Kadeessa and held that Kadeessa had thus obtained 2/3rd share which Ammanath was originally having over the property. It was accordingly held that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, being children and legal heirs of Kadeesa who is no more, have acquired co-ownership interest in the property. Thus issue Nos. 1 to 4 were answered in favour of the plaintiff. Considering issue Nos. 5 and 6, the learned Judge has observed that it was admitted that plaintiff and defendants 4 to 15 continued to live in the house on the plaint schedule property and that since parties are co-owners, question of recovery of possession cannot arise. Issue Nos. 5 and 6 were answered accordingly. Issue No. 8 as to whether right of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 have been lost to them by adverse possession and limitation, it was held that in the absence of evidence these issues are to be answered in the negative