(1.) This is an appeal by defendants 2, 11, 17, 19 to 24, 31, 35, 38, 46 and 104 in O.S. No. 65 of 1952 of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry. The suit was for the recovery of possession of the items of property described in the schedule to the plaint on the strength of the plaintiff's title, of Rs. 1,200 as mesne profits for the three years immediately preceding the suit and of future mesne profits at the same rate, i.e., Us. 400 per year.
(2.) The contentions of the plaintiff are summarised as follows in paragraph 2 of the judgment under appeal : "The plaint schedule properties belong in jenm to Kizhakkadath Kovilakam. These properties were in the possession of Pakaadavath Chandu on kanom Kuzhikanom right under the Kovilakam as per kanom document dated 5-5-1919. The rights of Chandu were acquired by the plaintiff by assignments dated 3-4-1943 and 23-121944 from the heirs of Chandu. The plaintiff obtained a renewal from Kizhakkadath Kovilakam as per document dated 27-4-1943. The plaintiff instituted O. S. 4 of 1945 on the file of this court for a declaration, of his title and for a permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 12 and others when they attempted to trespass upon these properties, In that suit, this court held that the plaintiff has got title to the plaint schedule properties and issued a permanent injunction against those defendants. At the time of that suit, the properties were in the possession of Kayyanna amson adhikari as Receiver appointed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kozhikode under Section 146 of the Criminal procedure Code, The Receiver surrendered his possession to the plaintiff after the decree. After the said decree, defendants 1 to 12 trespassed upon the plaint schedule properties and also persuaded the remainmg defendants to trespass upon property. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover possession with past profits. The plaintiff estimates the mesne profits at Rs. 400-0-0 per year".
(3.) Ext. A-41 dated 5-5-1919 is a copy of ths wiarupat executed by Chandu in favour of the Ko-vilakom. Ext. A-2 is the assignment deed of 3-4-1943. One of the heirs of Chandu was not a party to that document. He assigned his rights to one Mohammed and the document of 23-12-1944 mention-ed by the Judge is Ext. A-11, a deed of surrender executed by the said Mohammad in favour of the plaintiff. The document of 27-4-1943 is Ext. A-6.