Patta Passbook entry if can be conclusive proof of title.

The plaintiffs, who succeeded in the trial court but failed in the appellate Court, have preferred this second appeal. The suit relates to three items of properties. The first two items are agricultural lands and the third item is a house.

2. The relationship of the parties is not in dispute. The plaintiffs are the sons of Abdul Kuthoose Rowther, son of Kader Moideen Rowther. The third defendant is the sister of Abdul Kuthoose Rowther and the daughter of Kader Moideen Rowther. The first defendant is the daughter of the third defendant. The second defendant is a stranger. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their rank in the suit, as plaintiffs and defendants.

3. The case set out in the plaint is as follows: Kader Moideen Rowther died more than fifty years prior to suit and Abdul Kuthoose Rowther died about twenty years prior to suit. The latter was entitled to the suit properties and he was in long, continuous and open possession and enjoyment in his own right for more than fifty years and on his death, the plaintiffs became entitled thereto being his heirs. Patta was granted to the plaintiffs. They are paying kist to the Government and tax to the Panchayat through their mother. The plaintiffs have perfected their title by adverse possession also. The defendants have no right over the properties and they have not been in possession at least within twelve years prior to suit. The third defendant has been given other properties in the family arrangement and she has no right or possession in the suit properties. The second defendant is an interloper. He has instigated defendants 1 and 3 to make false claims to the suit properties and disturb the possession of the plaintiffs. The third defendant is not entitled to go behind the family arrangement. In any event, any right in the defendants has been lost by long, continuous and open hostile possession by the plaintiffs and their father. Since 2. 1974, the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and attempting to trespass. The second defendant would appear to have brought about a sham and nominal and purposeful document dated 2. 1974 in his favour with false recitals from defendants 1 and 3, which casts a cloud on the plaintiffs. Hence the suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction.

4. The case of the defendants in the written statement is as follows: Kader Moideen Rowther died in 1931 and Abdul Kuthoose Rowther died in 1957. His brother Abdul Rowther died in 1959. The case set out in the plaint is false. Item 2 belonged originally to Kader Moideen Rowther. On 30.1.1929 he executed a registered deed styled as a partition deed, but in reality and substance it was a gift deed whereby he gifted all his properties, some in favour of his first wife’s three children and some in favour of his second wife’s two children. One item was given to his mother Ponnammal for her life with vested remainder in favour of all his five children. He constituted himself as guardian of his minor children during their minority. The document was accepted, acted upon and given effect to. Item 2 and Item 3 in the plaint were given absolutely under the document to the three children of his first wife in common to be taken by them equally. Abdul Kuthoose Rowther had l/3rd share, Abdul had another l/3rd share and the remaining l/3rd belonged to the third defendant. Kader Mohideen had no other property than what was disposed under the document. Ten years thereafter, Abdul executed a registered sale deed and sold his l/3rd share in item 3 to Abdul Kuthoose. He sold his l/3rd share in item 2 to the third defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot claim exclusive title to items 2 and. If at all, the plaintiffs should file a suit for partition against all co-sharers. The plaintiffs are not the only heirs of Abdul Kuthoose. The grant of patta in favour of the plaintiffs for item No.2 is illegal and it is qu