JUDGMENT :

This Regular Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 r/w Order XLII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for short) by defendants 2, 3, 5, 8 and 7 in O.S. No. 173/2007 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court Kalpetta, challenging decree and judgment dated 28th February 2009 in the suit as well as decree and judgment in A.S. No. 9/2009 on the files of the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery dated 15th June 2019. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs and defendants 4, 7, 6, 10 and 9.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/ plaintiff. No others appeared.

3. I shall refer the parties in this Regular Second Appeal as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘contesting defendants’ for convenience.

4. As per order dated 20th November 2019, my learned predecessor formulated the following substantial question of law at the time of admitting this second appeal:-

“Having found that the plaintiffs had knowledge of Exts.B2 and B3 sale seeds executed by the mother subsequent to Ext.A18 cancellation deed, did not the courts below err in failing to consider whether the cancellation was accepted by