The court determined the need for proper identification of property and affirms the validity of a registered Will, emphasizing procedural adequacy in injunction suits.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal filed by the plaintiffs in a suit for injunction concurrently non-suited by the courts below.

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

The plaint schedule property was bequeathed in favour the plaintiff by a registered Will on 24.04.1988. It is alleged that an attempt was made to trespass into the plaint schedule property by the defendant on 19.05.2005 and previously on 17.10.2005 he had attempted to cut and remove the trees standing in the plaint schedule property. The defendant resisted the suit by contending that the plaintiffs have no right over the property, out of the plaint schedule property, 35 cents has been obtained by the 1st plaintiff vide settlement deed No.3151/2000, executed by her father. Contrary to the deed the father transferred 20 cents in the favour of the 1^st plainti the document No.192/2001. It was further contended that, out of 3 Acres, 20 5/40 cents of property, the father of the plaintiff had settled 1 Acre 50 cents in favour of the defendants, 55 cents in favour of the 1^st plainti 25 cents in favour of one Sisily and 30 cents in favour of Jinnx. It was agreed in the family settlement that the remaining 60 5/40 cents property would be sold in favour of Aliamma, the wife of the defendant. Based on which and amount of Rs.50,000/- was taken as advance. Instead of settling the amount in favour of the wife of the defendant, the property was settled in favour of the 1^st plaintiff. It was further contended that a total of 70 5/40 cents of property is in the ownership and possession of the legal representatives of Joseph, including the 1^st plaintiff and the defendant. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A5 documents were produced and PW1 to PW5 were examined. PW4 and PW5 were the attesting witnesses, who attested the signature of the testator in Ext.A1. On behalf of the defendant, Exts.B1 to B7 documents were produced and DW1 and DW2 were examined. The suit was tried along with O.S No.513/2006, which is a suit for specific performance and injunction based on a Karar dated 06.09.1988. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence the trial court found that description of the plaint schedule did not tally with the property described in Ext.A1 Will. While he was being cross examined in the proceedings, it was found that there is a mis-description in the property and further the plaintiffs having failed to take out an Advocate Commissioner, the trial court held that the suit cannot be decreed. Similarly, the suit for specific performance filed by the wife of the defendant was also dismissed. Both the parties preferred appeals before the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, as A.S No.121/2007 and A.S No.139/2007 and by judgment dated 29.06.2011, both the appeals were dismissed.

3. On 10.04.2012, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) From the facts and circumstances of this case did not courts below err in considering the question of proof of Ext.A1 and rendering findings thereon in a suit for injunction simplicitor?

(ii) Are not findings of courts below that appellants have failed to prove possession over the plaint schedule property patently wrong in view of Exts.A2, A3 and A5?.

(iii) When documentary evidence issued by the revenue authorities unequivocally proves possession of plaint schedule properties as on the date of suit did not courts below err in not suiting the appellants on the ground that no Advocate Commission was taken out especially when possession of appellants or identity of property was not disputed by the respondents?

(iv) From the facts and circumstances of this case and from the e