These are appeals filed by the defendants before the Courts below, against concurrent findings. The plaintiffs in the two suits, O.S.Nos.65 of 1996 and 66 of 1996, were respectively the wife and husband and the common defendants in both the suits were the father and brother of the husband. The plaintiffs in the two separate suits claimed that the husband, M. Joseph, had taken an oral lease of two plots, measuring 2 acres each, separately in the year 1960 from one Mukkath Kollandi Moideen Haji. Both the properties were barren lands and to effectuate the lease, for agricultural purposes, Joseph effected valuable improvements and obtained Purchase Certificates of these properties as per orders of the Land Tribunal, Kunnummal, in S.M.C.No.1586/1977 and O.A.No.776/1975.

2. The plaintiffs alleged trespass and sought for an injunction simplicitor initially. Along with the said suits, the wife Rosamma had filed another suit O.S.No.30 of 1997 against the very same defendants, contending that 1 acre was gifted by her husband to their daughter Jomol Joseph and she, as the mother, had been looking after the said properties. Joseph and Rosamma contended that out of the 4 acres, 1 acre and 46 cents was gifted to their son Jomon Joseph. The balance 1 acre gifted to Rosamma was the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.65/1996 and these were covered by S.M.C.No.1586 of 1977. From the balance 2 acres of property, 1 acre was gifted to the daughter, which was the subject matter of O.S.No.30 of 1997, and the 1 acre remaining in the possession of Joseph was the subject matter of O.S.No.66 of 1996; both covered by the orders in O.A.No.776/1975.

3. The plaintiffs in all the suits set up an apprehension of trespass and sought for injunction simplicitor. That being declined by the original Court, the plaintiffs were unsuccessfully before the appellate and revisional Courts. Then the plaint was amended, alleging actual trespass and seeking recovery of possession. Both the trial Court and the first appellate Court found that the lease set up by Joseph in 1960 from Moideen Haji was not correct. However, relying on the Purchase Certificates produced by the plaintiffs, the Courts below found that the mandate under Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as "the KLR Act", disables them from looking into the title of the plaintiff; in so far as Exhibits A6 and A7 are to be taken as conclusive proof of such title. O.S.No.30 of 1996 was dismissed on the short ground that the minor daughter, in whose name gift was alleged, was not a party to the suit and, hence, the suit was not maintainable. O.S.No.65 of 1996 was decreed, granting an injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the plaint schedule property. It was found that since the defendants were not in possession of the property, there was no requirement for granting a relief of recovery of possession. That was declined. O.S.No.66 of 1996 was decreed, granting the prayer for recovery of possession as also injunction against trespass. The first appellate Court confirmed the decree and judgments passed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court found, that, it is proved that the plaintiff has title over the property and the defendant had no title. The defendant's plea of possessory title was found to hold good against all the world, except against the true owner. The title of the plaintiffs were concluded on the strength of the Purchase Certificates.

4. The above Second Appeals, filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when admitted; the following substantial question of law was raised:

(i) Whether the Courts below were justified in granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff on the strength of Exhibit A6 (Exhibit A7) Purchase Certificate(s) in the nature and circumstances of the pleadings and the evidence in the case?

Two additional substantial questions of law were sought to be raised by the appellants, subsequent to the admission:

(i