The plaintiffs failed to establish their right, title, or interest over the property, leading to the dismissal of their partition suit.

JUDGMENT :

(EASWARAN S., J.)

The appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.278/2017 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Kasaragod. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint A schedule property originally belonged to Deyyakku. Thereafter, her right devolved upon the plaintiffs and the 7^th defendant. On 25.8.2017, the plaintiffs came to know that Doomanna Rai, father of defendants 1 to 6, fraudulently executed settlement deed No.260/2001 dated 24.1.2001 of SRO, Badiadka. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that Doomanna Rai has no right over the plaint A schedule property and, therefore, the settlement deed is not genuine and is liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs sent a registered notice on 22.8.2017 calling the defendants to effect partition of the A schedule property, which was refused by the defendants and hence, the suit was filed. The defendants appeared and contested the suit, pointing out that their predecessor in interest, namely Doomanna Rai, was in absolute ownership and possession of the suit property. Pattas were issued in his name and later, a settlement deed was executed in favour of the defendants 1 to 6. The plaintiffs themselves knew about the said settlement deed and no steps were taken by them to question the same. It was further contended that before the repeal of the Aliyasanthana Act, Doomanna Rai filed O.S No.34/1975, a partition suit, on the files of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod and a final decree of partition was passed on 19.6.2009 and an advocate commissioner was appointed to the suit, who visited the property for demarcation of the property, and that the plaintiffs knew about the filing of the suit and passing of the final decree.

2. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A15 documents were produced and marked, and on behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B6 were produced and marked. 1^st plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the 2nd defendant was examined as DW1.

3. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence, framed the following issues for consideration:

“1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree to set aside settlement deed No.260/2001 of SRO, Badiadka?

2) Whether the plaint A schedule property is partible?

3) If so, what are the respective shares entitled by the parties?

4) What are the equities and reservations if any entitled by the parties?

5) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation and under the principle of estoppel?

6) Whether the court fee paid in the suit is correct?

7) Reliefs and costs?”

4. After appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that Exts.B1 to B4 documents established the title of defendants 1 to 6 over the plaint schedule property. The derivation of the title over the plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs was solely based on Exts.A1 and A11 documents, which did not relate to Deyyakku, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, and thus, the trial court found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get a decree to set aside the settlement deed. On further appreciation, the trial court proceeded to hold that the plaintiffs having not established their right, title, or interest over the plaint schedule property, a suit for partition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Though the plaintiffs carried forward the matter before the Sub Court, Kasaragod, the appeal was also dismissed.

5. Heard Sri.Pushparajan Kodoth, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the finding of the trial court as well as the first appellate court, by appreciating the evidence produced by the plaintiffs, is perverse and, therefore, it requires reconsideration by this Court. It is the specific case of the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiffs and the defendants are descendants of a common ancestor, namely Doomakke, who is the mother of Deyyakku and Doomanna Rai, and that with reference to the categoric admission of DW1 that the part