IMPORTANT POINT
The last document relied on by the defendants is Ext.B10 document of the year 1997. The suit was filed in the year 1998. So, the required period of twelve years from the date of ouster will not satisfy by the said document. It is also submitted that they have also executed another deed of assignment in favour of one Azeez in the year 1990, but that document was not produced. Even if it is assumed that such a document was executed, it will not satisfy the twelve year period from the date of its execution.

JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by the decree and judgment in O.S.No.108 of 1998 of the Munsiff's Court, Vadakara and in A.S.No.92 of 2000 of the Additional District Court, Vadakara, the legal heirs of the original plaintiff along with some other supporting defendants came up with this second appeal.

2. The original suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 1 acre 36.75 cents.

3. The claim of the plaintiff is that his predecessor-in-interest one Chappila obtained leasehold right over the property under Ext.A1 in the year 1927. He has got three daughters by name Chirutha, Matha and Kalyani and they were in possession and enjoyment of the property along with other legal heirs. The demand for partition was not fructified, which has necessitated institution of the suit for partition.

4. The defendants entered appearance and contended inter alia that they have obtained exclusive right, title and interest over the property by virtue of Ext.B1 lease deed of the year 1944 through their mother Matha and subsequently, during her life time, she had asserted her right, title and interest over the property by giving 10 cents of property to one Kelappan in the year 1945 under Ext.B2. Subsequently, a partition was entered into between the legal heirs of Matha in the year 1989 and the property was separated. One of the share holders sold certain portion of the property under Ext.B10 to a stranger in the year 1997. It is also alleged that Ext.B6 purchase certificate was obtained in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the year 1977 and hence disputed and rejected the claim raised by the plaintiff.

5. The trial court dismissed the suit mainly on two reasons: that Ext.B1 is a fresh lease and not a renewal and secondly on the reason that the defendants have perfected title over the property by adverse possession and limitation.

6. In appeal, the first appellate court set aside the finding of adverse title by relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and others (2004 KHC 1809), but found that Ext.B1 is a fresh lease and not a renewal and confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal and the suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the legal heirs of the original plaintiff along with some other supporting defendants came up with this appeal.

7. The questions came up for consideration are:

(a) Is it permissible to go into the question of intention of parties to a document when the language employed is clear and unambiguous without any lacuna and what is the rule of interpretation that can be applied under such circumstances?

(b) What is the rule of interpretation that can be applied in Exts.A1 and B1 documents?

(c) Is it permissible for a co-owner to claim adverse title unless there is clear ouster to the notice of others?

(d) Whether equity rule of laches and acquiescence would come into play merely on non-participation of sharing of profits from co-ownership property and non-demand for partition for a pretty long period?

(e) Whether an internal arrangement of partition by some of the share holders would ipso facto amount to notice to other co-owners unless there is exercise of ownership by the respective sharers by doing any act of possession/construction over the property capable of giving notice to others.

(f) Whether the trial court and the first appellate court are justified in dismissing the suit?

8. Defendants 1 and 2 are the grandchildren of Matha, one of the daughter of Chappila. Admittedly, he was having three daughters by name Chirutha, Matha and Kalyani. The plaintiffs are litigating under Kalyani claiming to be the legal heirs of Kalyani. There is no much dispute regarding their status being the legal heirs of Kalyani.

9. The main dispute between the parties centered around the various documents executed pertaining to the subject matter of the suit right from Ext.A1 document of the year 1927 onwards. The contention raised by