N.K. Balakrishnan, J.

Defendants I to 3 in a suit for recovery of possession are the appellants. During the pendency of the appeal the first appellant died. His legal representatives were impleaded as supplemental appellants. The suit was for declaration of title and for recovery o possession.

2. The plaint schedule property measures 43 cents. It is comprised in Sy. No. 493/4 0 Neyyattinkara Village. Originally it belonged to Bhagavathi Pillai and Govinda Pillai. The mortgaged the property to one Subramaniyan Nadar and Kunjan Nadar as per Ext. Al mortgage deed of 1113 M.E. (corresponding to 1938). On the other hand the appellants would contend that Bhagavathi Pillai and Govinda Pillai had earlier executed a lease deed in respect of the plaint schedule property and other properties in favour of one Raman Nadar and Kochappy Nadar in 1107 as per Ext. B 1 who assigned that right to Nelson Nadar in 1972 as per document No. 1629/1972. It is their further case that Nalson Nadal mentioned above assigned his lease hold right to Jeevanayakam in 1972 as evidenced by Ext.B2. The learned counsel or the plaintiffs would submit that Ext. B I lease deed has nothing to do with the plaint sc