the said document is not a genuine one. In this context, it is relevant to note that the plaintiffs have no case that the order dated 25.9.1947 of Zamorin referred to in Ext.B1 is a fictitious one. If the said order is not a fictitious one, unless the plaintiffs are able to show that Zamorin had no authority to issue an order of that nature to lease out the suit property to Sankunni Nair, it cannot be said that Ext.B1 is invalid. As noted above, the case of the plaintiffs is that Ext.B1 being a document executed by one manager of Zamorin in favour of another manager, the same can be regarded only as a false document brought out without the concurrence of Zamorin. In the absence of any evidence to the effect that the order of Zamorin referred to in Ext.B1 was not in existence or that it is invalid, it cannot be contended that Ext.B1 is invalid, especially when the plaintiffs have no case that Zamorin had no authority to lease out the temple property to anybody. If Ext.B1 is a genuine document, it has to be accepted that Ext.B2, by which Sankunni Nair had assigned his leasehold right in respect of the suit property to the first defendant is also a genuine document.
