IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that plaintiffs rightfully inherited the property as valid ownership was established through sale and partition deeds, while defendants lacked substantive leasing evidence.

JUDGMENT :

C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.

Defendant No.1 and additional defendants 5 to 8 in O.S.136/1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery are the appellants and the plaintiffs are the cross-objectors. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.)

2. The plaintiffs filed this suit for mandatory injunction and in the alternative for recovery of possession. As per the plaint, the 1^st plaintiff is the wife of Puthanpurayil Chandran and 2^nd plaintiff is their daughter. The plaint schedule property is the portion of a large estate originally belonged to one C.M.Chandukutty, Kozhikode. In the year 1966, Chandukutty transferred his rights in respect of some property including the plaint schedule property in favour of Chandran and 24 others as per Ext.A1 sale deed. In the year 1969, as per Ext.A2 partition deed, the above 25 persons partitioned the above property among themselves and accordingly, Chandran obtained five acres of property, which is scheduled in the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the 1^st defendant originally belonged to Kozhikode and he was brought to Wayanad by Chandran to do manual labour in the plaint schedule property. He was residing in a property near to the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, the 1^st defendant was managing the plaint schedule property on behalf of Chandran in his absence. In the year 1976, suddenly Chandran went missing. In spite of enquiries by the relatives and friends, his whereabouts could not be traced out. In the absence of Chandran also the 1^st defendant continued to manage the plant schedule property. During the life time Chandran had not divulged the details of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs. Though the 1^st plaintiff knew that Chandran had some properties in Wayanad, she did not know its full details. Though the 1^st plaintiff and Chandran had a son, he died long back. His wife got re-married and as such she is not entitled to inherit the properties of Chandran. Till recently the 2^nd plaintiff was also residing outside Kerala and only recently she started staying along with the 1^st plaintiff.

3. According to the plaintiffs, since the whereabouts of Chandran is not known from 1976, in spite of earnest efforts, it is to be presumed that Chandran died and as such, the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule property. When the plaintiffs got more details about the plaint schedule property, they demanded the 1^st defendant to account for the income from the said property and to hand over the possession of the same to the plaintiffs. However, the 1^st defendant has attempted to create documents in respect of the plaint schedule property, though he has no manner of right or authority over the plaint schedule property. It was in the above context that the plaintiffs preferred the Suit for mandatory injunction and in the alternative for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property.

4. When the 1^st defendant filed his written statement, he raised a contention that portions of the plaint schedule property were already transferred by him in favour of additional defendants 2 to 6 and accordingly additional defendants 2 to 6 were impleaded in the Suit. According to the 1^st defendant, the document allegedly executed by Chandukutty in favour of Chandran and others and the subsequent partition deed allegedly executed by Chandran along with others are fraudulently created documents to escape from the provi