vacate the rented building, his sister permitted him to reside in her house with his family. Admittedly, Meenakshi Ammal sold the plaint schedule property to the Appellant’s mother Kalikutty Ammal as early as in 1970. According to the appellant, the document was executed in the name of the mother since the appellant's father was in a financial crisis. The appellant contended that he was residing in the house situated in the plaint schedule property. By document No.241 of 2013 of SRO, Palakkad, the appellant’s mother sold the property to the appellant’s brother who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.388 of 2015. According to the appellant, the above sale deed was a result of foul play by his brother and it is claimed that on the death of the appellant’s mother, all her children had right over the pro perty. The suit for partition was filed on the above pleadings. The case of the appellant's brother, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.388 of 2015, is that the appellant was in possession of the property as a licensee. According to him, the property belonged to Kalikutty Ammal as per document No.1244 of 1970 of SRO, Palakkad. It is stated that the property is his mother’s self-acquired property, purchased by her using the income derived from her job as a housemaid in
