1. Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff’s Court, Kottarakkara in O.S.No.202/1997, followed by those of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kottarakkara in A.S.No.98 of 2002, the plaintiffs, who were non-suited, have come up in Regular Second Appeal.

2. The suit is one for declaration of title and possession, mandatory injunction, and perpetual injunction. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule property, having an extent of 76 cents and excess land, was the subject matter of Exhibit-A4 dated 06.10.1969. Exhibit-A4 was relating to 1 Acre and 35 cents of Government land, which was in the possession of one Prabhakaran. His elder brother Gangadharan was similarly in possession of 1 Acre 82 cents of Government land. Prabhakaran sold the said 1 Acre and 35 cents of property to Janardhanan Pillai, through Exhibit-A4 sale deed. Similarly, Gangadharan sold the said 1 Acre 82 cents of property to Raman Pillai. Both Exhibits- A4 and A5 were executed on 06.10.1969. Janardhanan Pillai as well as Raman Pillai approached the Revenue Authorities for getting the land assigned. Consequently, Janardhanan Pillai got 99.5 cents of property out of the said 1 Acre 35 cents, assigned in his favour.

3. Thereafter, on 06.03.1984, Janardhanan Pillai executed Exhibit-A1 sale deed in favour of the 1st appellant and his brother Sudhakaran in respect of the said 99.5 cents of property and also in respect of the remaining extent by treating it as excess land along with the said 99.5 cents. Thereafter, in the year 1989, the 1st appellant along with Sudhakaran sold 46 cents out of 99.5 cents to one Varghese. In 1989 itself, Sudhakaran executed Exhibit-A2 sale deed in respect of his half oodukur right over the property in favour of the 2nd appellant, who is the wife of the 1st appellant. According to the appellants, they were in possession and enjoyment of 76 cents of property and excess land thereon, scheduled in the plaint, after excluding the 46 cents of property sold away from the 99.5 cents and excess land. It is alleged that the defendants have unauthorisedly and illegally trespassed into the portions of the plaint schedule property at its western portion and reduced that portion into the possession of the defendants, and hence the suit.

4. Originally, the suit was one for perpetual injunction. Subsequently, the suit was amended by incorporating the reliefs and pleadings for declaration of title and possession and, also for mandatory injunction. Defendants contended that the suit is not maintainable and further that Exhibits-A4 and A5 were not intended to convey any property either to Janardhanan Pillai or Raman Pillai. According to them, it was only a temporary arrangement made by Janardhanan Pillai and Raman Pillai, who were friends of Prabhakaran and Gangadharan, for the purpose of getting it assigned and for re-conveyance. Even though Raman Pillai had re-conveyed the property on getting assignment of 1 Acre out of the 1 Acre and 82 cents of property, Janardhanan Pillai did not care to re-convey the said 1 Acre and 35 cents of property, after getting assignment of 99.5 cents out of it.

5. Both the courts below non-suited the plaintiffs by finding that the plaintiffs have no title or possession over the entire extent of property covered by the plaint schedule.

6. This Court has admitted this Regular Second Appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether the courts below ignored Exts.A1, A2, A4 and A5, the documents produced to prove title and possession of the plaintiff over plaint schedule property?

(ii) Whether the court below has erred in giving predominance to oral evidence to the documentary evidence?”

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Exhibit-B1 could not have created any right of possession on the defendants over the property covered by Exhibit-B1, when the said property was the subject