IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the legal effect of creating a 'Wakf' and the presumption of genuineness of registered documents in determining property rights.

1.Plaintiffs in O.S.No.86/2010 on the files of Sub Court, Tirur have filed this appeal challenging decree and judgment in the above case dated 28.11.2014 as confirmed by the verdict dated 22.12.2022 in A.S.No.06/2015 on the files of Additional District Court, Tirur. Respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.86/2010.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs on admission. Perused the trial court as well as the appellate court.

3. I shall refer the parties in this Second Appeal as to their status before the trial court as 'plaintiffs' and 'defendants' hereinafter for convenience.

4. Plaintiffs filed the Suit seeking partition of the plaint B schedule property contending that the same originally belonged to Padinhare Peediyekkal Abdullakutty alias Bava Master and his sisters Mammeriakutty Umma, Thayummakutty Umma and Ayisakutty Umma as per kanam assignment deed No.1706/1935 of SRO Tirur. According to the plaintiffs, the sisters of Abdullakutty alias Bava Master released their right over the property in favour of their brother Abdullakutty @ Bava Master and at the time of death of Abdullakutty @ Bava Master, he was the absolute owner of the plaint B schedule property.

5. Defendants 1 to 3 appeared and filed written statement. They disputed description of plaint B schedule property and also raised a specific contention that no such property is available for partition. The specific contention raised by defendants was that Abdullakutty @ Bava Master had obtained property on the strength of release deed No.231/1957 and later he assigned the same in favour of the defendants as wakf property and permanently dedicated the same to the wakf. Therefore, plaint B schedule property is not partible.

6. Plaintiffs filed rejoinder after the defendants filed joint written statement denying execution of document No.747/1982, whereby defendants asserted creation of wakf in respect of the said property.

7. Trial court ventured the matter. PW1 was examined and Ext.Al was marked on the side of the plaintiffs. DW1 was examined and Exts.B1(a) to B2(b) were marked on the side of the defendants.

8. The specific case raised by the defendants before the trial court was that after the death of Abdullakutty alias Bava Master, the property left after wakf was devolved upon his legal heirs, children and wife. Thereafter all the legal heirs of Abdullakutty alias Bava Master assigned their right over the property to the defendants as per document Nos.533/1982, 581/1982, 686/1982, 550/1982 and 747/1982. Ext.X1 is the joint surrender deed dated 19.03.1982 No.747/1982 of S.R.O., Tirur and Ext.X2 is another joint surrender deed dated 19.03.1982 No.581/1982 of S.R.O. Tirur. Trial court considered the genuineness of Exts.X1 and X2 which were executed in the year 1982, i.e 28 years before the filing of the present Suit. The trial court found that when the 2nd plaintiff Smt. Fathima was examined as PW1 and she was confronted with Exts.X1 and X2 documents, she admitted signatures of Suhara and Fathima found in Ext.X2 document, though denied signatures of other persons in Ext.XI document. When the learned counsel for the defendants confronted the signature of PW1 alone in page 6 of Ext.X1, PW1 admitted her signature also. She also admitted that attesting witnesses to Ext.X1 and X2 were one and the same. The attesting witnesses to Ext.X1 and X2 are none other than the father in law of the sister of the plaintiff's husband and he is now no more. PW1 admitted further that second attestor in Ext.X1 is Puthukayil Muhammad alias Bava, son of Kunhahammad, who is the first attesting witness in Ext.X2 and he is the father of the plaintiff's husband. PW1 deposed that Muhammad alias Bava also died. It is relevant to note that in this case, as perceivable from Exts.X1 and X2, registered surrender deeds executed by the plaintiffs, 28 year before the filing of the Suit, they had permanently dedicated the property to the defendants and later this Suit was filed suppressing the