The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of properly proving the due execution of documents, the significance of adverse possession in property disputes, and the necessity of specific pleadings in cases of undue influence, fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation.

CHANDRASEKHARA MENON, J.:This appeal arises out of a proceedings for apportionment of compensation for land acquired between rival claimants. The appellants are claimants 5 to 9 in L.A.O.P. 43/69 on the file of the Sub Court, Badagara. Two items of properties are involved in the proceedings. These properties are in Nochad village in Quilanday Taluk. The first item is known as Edathil Porayi Paramba measuring 35 x 30 six feet koles and the other Uppilavullathil Paramba measuring 38 x 38 six feet koles. Claimants 1 and 2 are the jenmies and third claimant the intermediary with respect to the properties. The fourth claimant is Melcharthdar with regard to item 2.

2. Admittedly one Upathu Umma was the tenant in possession of both the items of the properties. Claimants 5 to 9 who are the wife and children of Soopi one of the sons of Upathu Umma claims that as per two documents executed by Uppathu Umma in favour of Soopi on 22-7-1941, they have got exclusive tenancy rights over the acquired properties and the entire compensation in respect of the tenancy and occupancy rights in the properties should be paid to them. These documents are marked in the case as Exs. A15 and A16. Ex A15 is a deed of assignment and the other one of gift.

3. Including Soopi, Uppathu Umma had nine children. They are Mammad whose heirs are claimants 14 to 17, (2) Abdurahimankutty, whose heirs are claimants 18 to 24, (3) Assankutty whose sole heir is claimant 25, (4) Soopy, whose heirs as stated earlier are claimants 5 to 9, (5) Ibrayi who is the twelfth claimant, (6) Ayissa, (7) Kunhiabdulla, (8) Ummayya the thirteenth claimant and (9) Kunhiummatha, whose heirs are claimants 10 and 11. Claimants 10 to 25 contested the claim of the heirs of Soopi. According to them Ex A15 the assignment deed on the basis of which the heirs of Soopi claim Edathil Porayi Paramba and Ex. A16 the gift deed on which they claim the Uppilavullathil Paramba did not convey any right to Soopi and they are entitled to compensation along with claimants 5 to 9 as regards the tenancy and occupancy rights which had belonged to Uppathu Umma.

4. It might be stated here that in regard to Edathil Porayi Paramba, claimants 10 and 11 had put forward another particular claim. Under the predecessor of the intermediary the third claimant, Moideen the father of claimants 10 and 11 and husband of Kunhiummatha was originally in possession. He had granted a sub-lease to Uppathumma of the said property as per Ex. A1 of 1913. Claimants 10 and 11 had set up the case that Moideen had assigned his intermediary right to his wife and children as per Ex. B2 of 1913 and therefore they had that right also in respect of that property. This right had been disputed by claimants 5 to 9 alleging that Ex. B2 deed was a sham one and no interest had passed under the said document. On the other hand, Moideen had assigned his intermediary interest to Uppathumma in 1922 as per Ex. A4 document. It will be necessary to complete case history to point out that the claimants 5 to 9 had also put forward the plea in the case that in respect of the tenancy right and occupancy right in the property apart from Exs. A15 and A16, in any view the claims of the other heirs of Uppathumma had been barred by adverse possession and limitation.

5. After a detailed review of the evidence in the case and the law on the matter the learned Subordinate Judge held-(1) Ex. B2 had not been acted upon and Uppathumma herself had obtained the intermediary right of Moideen as per Ex. A4, (2) Exs. A15 and A16 are not valid documents voluntarily executed by Uppathumma with knowledge of their contents. Claimants 5 to 9 cannot place any reliance on those deeds, and (3) Neither Soopi nor his heirs, claimants 5 to 9 had perfected their exclusive title to the properties by adverse possession and limitation against the other heirs of Uppathumma who are the other co-owners of the tenancy or occupancy rights in respect of the properties.

6. On the basis of thes