(1) Whether the subsequent recitals contained in Ext.A1 are repugnant to the right created in favour of Sreedhara Panicker and 1st respondent as per Ext.A1?

(2) Whether the subsequent recitals incorporated after the creation of the right in respect of the aforesaid persons in Ext.A1 amount to clauses violating absolute transfer or absolute transfer of interest within the meaning of Sections 10 and 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

(3) Whether Ext.B1 followed by the Will of 1994, Exts.B4, B5 and B2 result in intentional relinquishment of the known rights of the appellants allegedly created in favour of them through Ext.A1?

(4) Whether simple suits for injunction will lie in the case of O.S.No.538/2001 as well as O.S.No.545/2002?

(5) Whether a serious adjudication of title of the appellants or others are involved in these suits?

(6) Whether second appeals are maintainable in these matters under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

These are the main questions that arise for consideration in these Second Appeals.

2. R.S.A. No. 396 of 2010 has arisen from A.S.No.26/2005 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvalla, which was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.538/2001 of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. R.S.A.No.399 of 2010 has arisen from A.S.No.25/2005 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvalla, which was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.545/2002 of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla.

3. Appellants in R.S.A.No.396/2010 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.538/2001. While dealing with these Second Appeals they are being referred to as 'appellants'. The first respondent in the appeal is P.K. Gopalakrishna Panicker, and the 2nd respondent is his son P. Rajendran. They are being referred to as 'respondents' or 'R1', 'R2' respectively. The appellants in R.S.A.No.399/2010 are also the very same appellants in R.S.A.No.396/2010. The aforesaid respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.545/2002. The appellants herein are the 4th defendant and 5th defendant respectively in O.S.No.545/2002. Defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.545/2002 are the sons of one P.T. Samuel, who is the first defendant in the said suit. In these second appeals, defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.545/2002 are being referred to as 'defendants 1, 2, and 3' respectively.

4. Both the suits are for perpetual injunction. The plaint schedule property in O.S.No.538/2001 is 22.395 cents of property after deducting 2.105 cents from the western half having an extent of 24=cents out of the total extent of 49 cents of property in Sy.No.225/2001 of the Koyippara Village and the western half of the building situated in the said 49 cents, excluding that portion of the building which comes within the aforesaid 2.105 cents. Kochu Parameswara Pillai and his wife Kuttiamma have two sons namely Sreedhara Panicker and Gopalakrishna Panicker(R1). The appellants are the sons of Sreedhara Panicker. Sreedhara Panicker have four daughters namely Indira Devi, Shobana Devi, Lalithamma(DW3) and Santha Devi.

5. Kochu Parameswara Pillai as the first party, Kuttiamma as the second party, Sreedhara Panicker as the third party and R1 as the 4th party, executed Ext.A1 partition deed as document No.2705 dated 01.08.1963 of the Aranmula Sub Registry. The devolution of properties covered by it has been shown as property devolved on the first party through document No.2050/1098 of the Aranmula Sub Registry, through partition of family properties of parties 2 to 4 vide document Nos.1483/1101, 2276/1114 and 294/1114 of the Aranmula Sub Registry, sale deed Nos.2439/1101, 1485/1101 & 911/1115, Ext.B3 release deed No.4069/1962, and also the decree in O.S.No.503/1100. The only contribution from the part of the first party in Ext.A1 document is the property covered by document No.2050/1098. All the other properties noted above were treated as properties to which parties 2 to 4 were jointly entitled. Through Ext.A1 partition deed, the property contained in the first schedule was allotted t