P.R. Raman, J.

1. The appeal Suit, A.S. No. 52 of 1999, arises out of the judgment and decree of Subordinate judge's Court, Pala, in O.S. No. 227 of 1994, a suit for declaration, recovery of possession, mesne profits and injunction. The respondent herein as plaintiff instituted the suit. As per the plaint averments, the second defendant Kunjujamma was the wife of the first defendant, George Joseph. Defendants 3 to 5 were their children. First defendant was the brother of the plaintiff. In short, the defendants were the plaintiff's brother, his wife and children. The plaint schedule properties belong to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, originally the property belonged to the father of the plaintiff and first defendant, namely, Ouseph son of Ouseph. The plaint schedule property was included in E Schedule in the Will executed by the said Ouseph in June 1979. Ouseph died on 30-8-1991. On 25-1-1991, Item No.I of the plaint schedule property was sold to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.31,000/= through the Mukthiyar holder of Ouseph by document No. 159/91. As per the recitals in the Will, the remaining property of the deceased Ouseph would devolve on his Wife Aley, if she is alive after his death and also that she had every right to sell or mortgage the properties. Only after her death, the property will devolve on the legal heirs. Thus, after the death of Ouseph, the property would devolve on his wife, who was the mother of the plaintiff and the first defendant. While so, on the basis of the right of Aley over Item No. II, she sold that property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.67,000/- on 11-5-1992, and thus, the plaintiff had got absolute right over Item No. II. Thus, both on Item Nos. I and II of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff has got absolute right, as per the two separate documents, stated above. Besides the plaintiff and the first defendant, ouseph and Aley had another son by name, Joseph, who died earlier leaving his children, Annakkutty, Thresiamma, Mariakutty, Aleykutty and Claramma. There was a building situated in Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, constructed by Ouseph, 60 years back and periodical repairs and maintenance were done by him. The first defendant, his family and mother Aley were residing in that building, during the life time of Ouseph. Cultivations were done by Ouseph. Few years prior to his death, the relationship between him and the first defendant became strained, and Ouseph and his wife Aley left the house, because of the cruelty meted out to them by the first defendant, and were staying in a Poor Home for the Aged at Bangalore. Five Acres of property and 914 cents of property along with a two storied building and 9 cents of property along with a two storied building was given to the first defendant by Ouseph. Aley has given 2 acres of land in the name of the second defendant. The defendants were residing in Item No.II of the building, on the permission granted by Ouseph during his life time, but had no independent right over the same. After the sale of the property in favour of the plaintiff, they had no right and they became mere licencees. As the plaintiff had no intention to permit them to stay there, the licence was cancelled and the same was duly intimated. The plaintiff, being the absolute owner of the property, is entitled to get recovery of possession from the defendants. Earlier, claiming right over the plaint schedule property, first defendant filed an Indigenous Application, LA. No. 996/1992, before the Vacation Court, which was transferred to Munsiff Court, pala and re-numbered as O.S. No. 310/1992 against the plaintiff and her husband. The Will executed by Ouseph was produced in L.A.O.P No. 151 of 1992 before the District Court, Kottayam, for getting letters of administration. Hence, the suit.

2. The defendants filed a written statement. As per the Will executed by Ouseph in 1979 the plaintiff will not get any right over the plaint sc