JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 100 r/w Order XLII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the C.P.C.’ hereinafter), against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 202/2016 on the files of the First Additional District Court, Kozhikode, dated 16.10.2017, arose out of the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 611/2014 on the files of the First Additional Munsiff Court, Kozhikode, dated 30.7.2016.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant.

3. I have perused the trial court records.

4. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendant’ for convenience.

5. On 3.12.2018, my learned predecessor admitted this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Was the lower appellate court correct in eschewing Ext.A1 document especially when parties rely upon the same to raise other respective plea?

(ii) Going by the terms of Ext.A1, was the lower appellate court correct in holding that the respondent is in exclusive possession of the plaint schedule property?

(iii) Can a person who is a party to a document conte