B. Kemal Pasha, J.

1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Court, Pathanamthitta in A.S.No.72/08, the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.250/04 of the Munsiffs Court, Ranny, has come up in second appeal. The first defendant is no more. His legal representatives are the appellant as well as respondents 2 to 6.

2. The suit was originally filed by the first respondent herein as plaintiff as a suit for perpetual injunction, for restraining the defendants and the persons claiming under them from causing any obstructions to the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, as well as the private road constructed through the same, and also from changing the lie of the said private road, and from committing any waste on the plaint schedule property and the said private road.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the 2nd defendant, who is the appellant herein, purchased the plaint schedule property from the legal representatives of deceased Vasudevan, who was the original patta holder of the property, and consequentially, the appellant was impleaded in the suit as the 2nd defendant. Initially, the suit was filed against the first defendant alone. The first defendant is the father of the 2nd defendant. A relief has been incorporated in the plaint for declaring Ext.B1 as null and void.

4. The Munsiffs Court, Ranny dismissed the suit. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff went up in appeal before the District Court, Pathanamthitta through A.S. 72/2008. The learned Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta allowed the appeal in part, and granted a judgment and decree of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant and the other respondents in the appeal from causing any obstructions to the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and the private road situated therein, and also from committing any waste thereon. In paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment the lower appellate court has gone to the extent of stating that the declaration sought for by the plaintiff as such cannot be granted solely because of the fact that the executants of Ext.B1 were not made parties to the suit. Thereafter, it has been stated that "But all the same plaintiff can ignore Ext.BI it being a document created on falsehood."

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

"(1) When Ext.A2 shows that it is an assignment deed executed by Thomas Abraham, Annamma and Scaria in favour of Tharapel Mathai Antorny for a consideration of Rs. 8,750/-, whether the unregistered deed is valid in law?

(2) When Ext.A6 sale deed executed by Vasudevan in favour of PW7 Raghavan Nair and his wife Ponnamma shows that the property which was earlier in his possession under an agreement for sale was transferred thereunder and the property so assigned excludes the disputed 35 cents, whether first appellate court was justified in finding possession of the said excluded 35 cents with the plaintiff, as plaintiff is claiming the right obtained from the said Raghavan Nair?

(3) Whether the first appellate court on the evidence, was justified in holding that legal heirs of Vasudevan have no right to assign the property, by Ext.B1 sale deed?

(4) Whether the first appellate court on the evidence was justified in holding that plaintiff established possession of the disputed 35 cents and granting a decree for injunction based on that finding?"

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the plaintiff has no title over the plaint schedule property and some false documents were cooked up and created through PW7, who is a document writer, in order to forward false claims over the plaint schedule property. It has been argued that the said property exclusively belongs to the 2nd defendant, who is the appellant herein through Ext.B1 sale deed. According t