(1.) Defendants 1 to 4, 7 to 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 22 to 24, 31 to 37 in O.S.No. 32 of 1976, Subordinate Judge's Court, Attingal, are the appellants. Plaintiffs 1 to 9 and defendants 11, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25 to 30, 35 to 40 and defendants 5 and. 6 are the respondents. The suit was filed for declaration of plaintiffs' title and possession over the plaint schedule property and for an injunction. The plaintiffs claimed the right under Ext. A1 (same as Ext. B1) Will executed by one Velayudhan dated 27-3-1099. By the said document Velayudhan bequeathed 32 items of properties. They were his self acquired properties. He bequeathed properties to parties 1 to 6 (seshakars), parties 7 to 14, distant kindred and party No. 15, a person who brought him up. Parties 1 and 2 were seshakars. Party No. 3 is a seshakari (niece) and parties 4, 5 and 6 are the children of party No. 3. Parties 5 and 6 are daughters of party No. 3 and party No. 4 is Narayanan Govindan, the son of party No. 3-Seshakkari. Plaintiffs are the children of Narayanan Govindan. We are concerned in this case only with items 14 to 22 in Exhibit A1 (Ex.B1) Will, less three items sold away to strangers. It was submitted at the Bar that there was another Will by deceased Velayudhan by which he gave other items of properties to his wife and children. We are not concerned with the same in this case. The real dispute is between the wife and children of Govindan, the plaintiff in the suit, and parties 5 and 6, who are sisters of deceased Narayanan Govindan and their children. Parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the document are dead. The plaintiff claimed possession under Ext.A1 (Ext.B1) Will. The Trial Court found that the plaintiffs have no proprietary right in respect of the plaint properties. It held that they have the right to be in possession and enjoyment of the same by virtue of Clause.17 of Ext.A1 (Ext.B1) Will and that they are in possession of the plaint items. The defendants were restrained by a permanent injunction from disturbing the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. In appeal, the learned District Judge by his judgment dated 28th March, 1980 affirmed the said decision. But it should be noted that at the time of arguments, the respondents' counsel (plaintiffs and certain other defendants) submitted that the question of title may be left open. The only point pressed was regarding the right of the plaintiffs to obtain an order of injunction. In this second appeal also, counsel appearing for the parties pressed only the right of the plaintiffs to obtain an order of injunction.
(2.) The contesting defendants have come up in appeal against the decisions of the Courts below granting the injunction, as prayed for. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following questions of law were formulated as substantial questions of law arising for consideration in the appeal:
(3.) I heard counsel for the appellants, Mr. S. Narayanan Poti and also counsel for the respondents, Mr. V. Vyasan Poti and Mr. Gopalakrishnan Nair. Both sides admitted in the Trial Court that the decision of the suit will depend upon the interpretation of Clause.17 of Ext.B1 (Ext.A1), the sole document relied on by both sides to establish their rival claims. So, the centre of controversy depends upon the scope and impact of Ext.B1 (Ext.A1) and in particular, Clause.17 thereof. The relevant clauses of Ext.A1 (Ext.B1) which fall for consideration are extracted here in below : (Clause Nos. 10 and 17).