IMPORTANT POINT
A family arrangement, if long-standing and accepted by all parties, is binding and cannot be easily contested, especially in partition disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J.)

1. The above Appeals and Cross Objection arise from two connected suits, which are disposed by the Trial Court by a common Judgment.

2. O.S.No.249/1996 of the Subordinate Judges Court, Kozhikode was a suit for partition and consequential injunction filed by plaintiffs, who are three in numbers, against the defendants, who are seven in numbers. The 3rd defendant in O.S.No.249/1996 had filed O.S.No.140/1996 before the Munsiffs Court, Kozhikode against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.249/1996, as defendants 1 to 3. The said suit was for permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to a part of the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.249/1996. Later, O.S.No.140/1996 was transferred to the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kozhikode and the same was renumbered as O.S.No.248/1997.

3. For convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to according to their status in O.S.No.249/1996. The Counsels before me are also referred with reference to the parties in O.S.No.249/1996.

4. Both the suits were tried together treating O.S.No.249/1996 as the leading case. On the side of the plaintiffs, no oral evidence was adduced and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and marked Exts.B1 to B17. DW1 is the 6th defendant and the DW2 is the husband of the 3rd defendant. The Commission Reports were marked as Exts.C1, C4, and C6, and Sketches were marked as Ext.C2, C3, and C5. Exts.C5 Plan and C6 Report are submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.140/1996 while the matter was pending before the Munsiff Court. The plaintiffs had filed I.A.No.7932/1998 for remitting back Exts.C1 and C2. After examining the Advocate Commissioner as PW1, the said Application was dismissed as per Order dated 06.11.1999 recording the objection of the plaintiffs for further consideration at the trial of the suit. But at the trial of the suit, no further evidence was let in against Exts.C1 and C2.

5. The Trial Court dismissed O.S.No.249/1996 and decreed O.S.No.248/1997 granting permanent prohibitory injunction. In O.S.No.249/1996 it is found that the entire extent covered by Ext.A1 is already partitioned as per Ext.A6. In O.S.No.248/1997, it is found that the 3rd defendant (in O.S.No.248/1997) has title and possession over the plaint schedule property settled in her favour by the 1st defendant as per Ext.B15.

6. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.249/1996, who are the defendants in O.S.No.248/1997 filed A.S.No.58/2000 challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.248/1997 and filed A.S.No.59/2000 challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.249/1996. The First Appellate Court dismissed A.S.No.58/2000 confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.248/1997 granting permanent prohibitory injunction. The First Appellate Court allowed A.S.No.59/2000 passing Preliminary Decree for partition in O.S.No.249/1996. The injunction sought by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.249/1996 was not granted by the First Appellate Court.

7. R.S.A.No.510/2003 is filed by the defendants 1 to 5 in O.S.No.249/1996 challenging the Preliminary Decree for partition granted by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.59/2000.

8. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.249/1996 filed Cross Objection No.58/2003 in R.S.A.No.510/2003 against the refusal of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.59/2000 to grant injunction sought for in O.S.No.249/1996.

9. R.S.A.No.846/2003 is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.248/1997 challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court confirming the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in O.S.No.248/1997.

10. This Court admitted R.S.No.510/2003 on 11.07.2003 formulating the following substantial questions of law:

1. Is the court below justified in treating Ext.A6 which affects an out right partition as a document which merely makes arrangement for taking the income?.

2. Is the court below justified in completely disregarding the documentary evidence which will prove that Ext.A6 was accepted and acted on by all the parties?.

11. The R