1. What is the nature of Exhibit-B3; whether it is an outright sale or a mere grant of licence?

2. If it is a licence, whether it is an irrevocable licence?

3. Can an irrevocable licence be transferred?

4. Whether the right created in favour of the 1st appellant through Exhibit-B3 is alienable?

2. The 2nd appellant is the son of the 1st appellant. The respondents are the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.330 0f 2008 of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor. The appellants are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The appellants have come up with this second appeal by challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor in O.S.No.330 of 2008, followed by those of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Perumbavoor in A.S.No.75 of 2010 and A.S.No.77 of 2010. A.S.No.75 of 2010 was filed by the present appellants; whereas A.S.No.77 of 2010 was filed by the 3rd defendant.

3. This Court has admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. When possession of the property is admittedly with the defendant, without seeking a relief of recovery of possession, could the declaratory reliefs of cancellation of document whereby possession was obtained by the defendant and cancellation of the documents executed pertaining to the said property alone is sustainable in view of the bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?

2. Is not a right under an irrevocable licence coupled with the transfer of assignable interest in property heritable and transferable?

3. Are the courts below right in cancelling the documents executed by the 1st defendant regarding the plaint schedule property after arriving at a finding that the 1st defendant is also a co-owner of the plaint schedule property?

4. Whether the courts below are correct in granting cancellation of the documents when the documents are not executed either by the plaintiffs or by any person who under any circumstance is unable to bind the plaintiffs by the said documents."

4. The suit is one for getting Exhibits-A2 and A3 sale deeds, in respect of the telephone booth and the space occupied by it, numbered as PMC XVII/1108, constructed beneath the staircase shown in the plaint schedule, and also for the cancellation of contract dated 14.07.1995, in respect of the said telephone booth, entered into between the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant. A relief of perpetual injunction has also been sought for, for restraining the defendants from creating any documents and from transferring or alienating the property covered by Exhibits-A2 and A3.

5. The case of the plaintiffs, in short, is that the plaintiffs along with the 1st defendant were the co-owners in respect of the property covered by Exhibit- A1. The property is situated in the heart of the Perumbavoor town, where the said persons constructed a shopping complex, for which the 1st plaintiff was authorised through a general power of attorney by all the other co-owners. There is a staircase in the southern block of the building. The 1st plaintiff, through Exhibit-B3 contract, permitted the 1st defendant to construct and conduct a public telephone booth at a space of 10 feet length and 6 feet width beneath the said staircase, through contract dated 14.07.1995. Thereafter, as against the terms and conditions contained in Exhibit-B3 contract, the 1st defendant executed Exhibit-A2 settlement deed in favour of his wife and son, who is the 2nd defendant, in respect of the plaint schedule item, by showing a larger extent of 212 Square Feet as against 60 Square Feet originally granted through Exhibit-B3. Thereafter, the 1st defendant along with his wife and the 2nd defendant executed Exhibit-A3 sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the 3rd defendant. According to the plaintiffs, they did not want to continue with the licence granted through Exhibit-B3 and therefore, they revoked the licence. Plaintiffs wanted to get Exhibits-A2 settlement deed and A3 sale deed set aside, and als