K. Vinod Chandran, J.—Seemingly black and white case, rendered complex by a confounding decree passed in a suit for recovery of possession. The suit for recovery of property was decreed without identifying the plaint schedule property. The trial Court noticed that the plaintiff had not taken out a Commission, but still grunted the prayer for recovery with a rider that the execution Court will identify the property and recovery will be effected only to the extent the plaint schedule property is found in the hands of the defendants The decree was not to be taken as granting recovery of possession of the properties in the possession of the defendants; but only to the extent; it is identified as in their possession. .

2. One Kaliani sued for recovery of possession of 25 cents of Njal Nilam ‘in’ Survey No.1027 of Thrissur Village. The contention of the plaintiff was that she obtained the said lands from one Bhaskaran Assari, who purchased it from one Kuttan Mannadiar, Kuttan Mannadiar obtained the said land from one Sankaran. Sankaran, alongwith one Pappu, had taken on lease certain paddy fields as also 535/8 cents of Njal Nilam from Kuruppath family, who had jenm over the proper