1. The original petition has been laid by the petitioners/petitioners and the 16th respondent/eighth petitioner, against the respondents 1 to 15/respondents, for declaration, recovery of possession and future mesne profits.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the nomenclature in the original petition.

3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the properties described in the petition schedule absolutely belonged to one Adbul Kasim, the elder brother of the deceased first petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 are the children of the deceased first petitioner’s paternal uncle. Abdul Kasim married Bajjiriya Ammal, sister of the respondents 1 to 3 and he died intestate on 22.04.1998 and the deceased first petitioner is the sole heir of the deceased Abdul Kasim as per the Mohammedan Law. The parents of the deceased Abdul Kasim predeceased him and the deceased first petitioner’s paternal uncles M.S.Sheik Ali died in 1980 and M.S.Sheik Dawood died in 1950 and the wife of the deceased Abdul Kasim also predeceased him in 1989 and thus, the said Abdul Kasim had no issues. A genealogy table is appended to the petition to show the relationship between the parties concerned. As the deceased first petitioner is the sole heir of the deceased Abdul Kasim, the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased Abdul Kasim in the presence of the deceased first petitioner and thus, the deceased first petitioner was the absolute owner of the suit properties. The respondents 1 to 3 have taken the possession of the suit properties, after the death of Abdul Kasim by trespassing into the same in the last week of April, 1998 and though the deceased first petitioner had been repeatedly requesting them to vacate and handover the possession of the suit properties to him, the respondents 1 to 3 were giving evasive reply and thereafter, sent a caveat petition to the deceased first petitioner in August, 1998, which revealed their intention to squat on the suit properties as far as possible without handing over the same to the deceased first petitioner. They have no right to remain in the possession of the suit properties and the respondents 1 to 3 also questioned the succession of the deceased first petitioner to the suit properties and the properties of Bajjiriya Ammal. As per the legal position, the deceased first petitioner is the sole heir to inherit the properties of the deceased Abdul Kasim and inasmuch as the respondents 1 to 3 had taken a hostile attitude towards the deceased first petitioner, according to the deceased first petitioner, he had been constrained to lay the original petition seeking for the appropriate reliefs. The respondents 4 to 8 are the children of the first respondent. The respondents 9 and 10 are the children of the second respondent. The respondents 11 to 15 are the children of the third respondent. They have also been impleaded as parties to the proceedings per the orders of the Court below. The alleged oral gift and the document of Hiba relating to the suit properties is a forged one, illegal and invalid and the petitioners denied all the contentions about the alleged oral gift. During the pendency of the original petition, the first petitioner had died and his legal representatives have been brought on record as the petitioners 2 to 8 and on the demise of the first petitioner, the petitioners 2 to 8 have succeeded his estate. Thus, it is stated that the original petition has been laid for the appropriate reliefs.

4. The case of the first respondent, as adopted by the other respondents, is that the original petition laid by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is false to state that Abdul Kasim died intestate on 22.04.1998. The genealogy table appended to the plaint does not reflect the true position and the petitioners suppressed the branch of M.S.Abdul Karim and M.S.Meera Sahib in the plaint as well as in the genealogy table. It i