JUDGMENT

These appeals arise from a common Judgment in A.S No. 24 of 2006 and A.S No. 27 of 2006 on the files 0f Sub Court Kozhikode. Three suits were tried together. One preferred by the appellants for injunction against the respondents, another by the respondents 1 and 2 in R.S.A No. 1029 of 2011 for partition of plaint schedule property and the last one by the father of the above respondents for cancellation of the sale deed executed by him in favour of the appellants. The suit for injunction was decreed, while the other suits were dismissed. Two appeals were preferred by the respondents. As against the dismissal of the third suit, no appeal was preferred.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:-

One Chandu had various extents of property in his hold. Chandu derived Jenmom rights over the property from a Nair Tharavadu. His son Chathukkutty, however, had a lease deed executed on 23.10.1908.

Later, Chathukkutty got a lease deed renewed by yet another document in the year 1921 as document No.3159/21 dated 22.07.1921. While so, there was a partition among the Jenmi Tharavadu and by a fresh lease deed executed in the year 1951 as document No.500/19