(1.) The appellants are the defendants in a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction. The suit was concurrently decreed by the courts below.
(2.) An extent of 12 acres of property, including the plaint 'A' schedule property which has an extent of 78 cents, belonged to late Varkey, the grand father of the plaintiff. The same was conveyed by him in favour of late Joseph, the father of the plaintiff under Ext.A1 settlement deed. According to the plaintiff, though as per the recitals in Ext.A1, the extent of property is 90 cents, on actual measurement the property has an extent of only 78 cents. Mathai, the predecessor of the defendants were engaged by Varkey, the predecessor of the plaintiff for agricultural activities in the property. Since they raise claim over the property, the suit is filed. The plaintiff volunteered to give 10 cents each to the two sets of defendants as kudikidappu and claimed recovery of only the remaining extent of 58 cents.
(3.) The defendants, though admitted the title of the predecessor of the plaintiff, denied the plaintiff's title. It was contended that the larger extent of property including the plaint schedule were alienated by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff does not have title over the property. It was further contended that the defendants have been in long uninterrupted possession of the property and have perfected title of adverse possession.