JUDGMENT : C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J. The defendants 1 and 2 in OS 139/2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode are the appellants. (For the purpose of convenience the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.) 2. The plaintiffs filed the above Suit for declaration and injunction. As per the plaint averments, the plaint 'A' schedule property originally belonged to Kanholi Tarawad of the 2 nd defendant. The said property was subjected to kanam right to Thaliyil Vettath Tarawad as per the kanam sale deed No.123/1941 of South Malabar SRO. The above kanam right of Thaliyil Vettath Tarawad was sold to one Chanthu, the father of the plaintiff and Chanthu was in possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property. Since 1942 Chanthu was considered as the tenant by Kanholi Tarawad and they received rent from him and issued receipts also for the rent. In 1948 on the death of Chanthu his right over the scheduled property devolved upon his wife Janaki and his male children namely the plaintiffs. Thereafter receipts were issued in favour of Janaki by jenmi of Kanholi Tarawad. When the Kerala Land Reforms Act came into operation, the scheduled property was vested with the Government and thereafter they stopped paying pattam to the jenmi. Out of the scheduled property consisting of 16 cents, 3 cents was allotted to a tenant by name M.Kalyani as per the proceedings of the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode, in O.A.38/1986. The plaint 'B' schedule is the property remaining in plant 'A' schedule. Chanthu was following Mithakshara system of inheritance and after the death of Chanthu, his entire right in the property devolved upon his wife and the plaintiffs alone. The daughters of Chanthu namely, Seetha Lakshmi and Ambujakshy filed a suit as OS 109/2003 claiming partition of the said property of deceased Chanthu. The above suit was decreed and RFA 65/2006 filed by the plaintiffs is pending before this Court. 3. According to the plaintiffs, in 1960 the revenue officials refused to receive tax from the wife of Chanthu and directed her to produce legal heirship certificate. Thereafter, because of the pendency of the partition suit, they could not pay tax for the plaint schedule property. While the plaint schedule property was in the possession of Chanthu, he had planted coconut trees and usufructs were taken by Chanthu and thereafter by the plaintiffs. Thereafter, because of the pendency of the partition suit, they could not pay tax for the plaint schedule property. While the plaint schedule property was in the possession of Chanthu, he had planted coconut trees and usufructs were taken by Chanthu and thereafter by the plaintiffs. Later, due to flood and disease the coconut trees got destroyed and 'B' schedule property became barren land. Making use of the above situation, the defendants 1 and 2 fraudulently created a document in the name of the 1 st defendant and paid tax for the B schedule property on the basis of that document. Though the plaintiffs filed an application before the 3 rd defendant namely the Village Officer for receiving the land tax, no action was taken. After creating such a fraudulent document the defendants attempted to trespass into the B schedule property. It was in the above context the plaintiffs filed the Suit. 4. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint and claiming that the 2 nd defendant and others were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is also contended that the schedule property was not subject to kanam right to Thaliyil Vettath Tarawad. The allegation that three cents was given as kudikidappu to Kalyani was also denied. The averment that Chanthu developed the scheduled property and planted coconut trees and thereafter it was destroyed in flood etc, were also denied. According to them, the scheduled property belonged to the tarawad of the 2 nd defendant and as per partition deed No.43/1998, the 2 nd defendant and her mother Uooli Amma and Visalakshi Amma obtained the property and they were in possession and enjoyment of the said property. On the death of Uooli Amma and Visalakshi Amma, the 2 nd defendant obtained the property as per a registered Will executed by them. Thereafter, the 2 nd defendant sold the said property to the 1 st defendant as per sale deed No.1153/2007. Therefore, they prayed for dismissing the Suit. 5. It is averred in the written statement filed by the 3 rd defendant village officer that as per the village records, Kanholi Karunakaran Nair is the jenmi of the property. It is also contended that there is no document in the village records regarding the kanam right of Kaloor Chanthu on payment of tax by him. 5. It is averred in the written statement filed by the 3 rd defendant village officer that as per the village records, Kanholi Karunakaran Nair is the jenmi of the property. It is also contended that there is no document in the village records regarding the kanam right of Kaloor Chanthu on payment of tax by him. They have also denied the claim of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the pliant schedule property. 6. The trial court framed four issues. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs1 and 2 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A10, B1 to B12, C1 and C2 series. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court found that the plaintiffs are in possession of the plaint B schedule property and as such the suit was decreed declaring the possessory right of the plaintiffs over 'B' schedule property and restraining the defendants from trespassing into the said property. Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants preferred this appeal. 7. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following : I. Whether the plaintiffs have possessory right over the plaint 'B' schedule property ? II. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court calls for any interference in the light of the grounds raised in the appeal ? 8. Heard Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer the learned Senior counsel for the appellants and Sri.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. The points :- According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Kanholi tarawad of the 2 nd defendant. In the written statement filed by the 3 rd defendant also it is admitted that as per the village records, Kanholi Karunakaran Nair is the jenmi of the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, the scheduled property was subjected to kanam right to Thaliyil Vettath tarawad and the said right was purchased by Chanthu, the father of the plaintiffs. The above claim of the plaintiffs was denied by the defendants. To substantiate the above claim, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon Ext.A1, copy of kanam assignment deed No.143/1941 and also the entries in Ext.B1 partition deed No.998/1943. The above claim of the plaintiffs was denied by the defendants. To substantiate the above claim, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon Ext.A1, copy of kanam assignment deed No.143/1941 and also the entries in Ext.B1 partition deed No.998/1943. From Ext.B1 itself it is revealed that the property involved in schedule No.19, which is the subject matter in the suit was subject to kanam right and also that arrears of pattam is due from the tenant. Ext.A1 kanam assignment deed also shows that Chanthu obtained the kanam right over the plaint schedule property. Therefore, from Exts.A1 and B1 it is revealed that the plaint schedule property was subject to kanam right to Chanthu, as claimed by the plaintiffs and as such the trial court was justified in holding that the plaint schedule property has been in the possession of the plaintiffs in continuation of their predecessor Chanthu. For the very same reasons, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court protecting the possessory right of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and restraining the defendants from trespassing into the said property. Points answered accordingly. In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.