JUNHILLATH DEVADASAM Vs. K.PADMAHABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) THE second appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Thalassery in A.S No. 119 of 1998 confirming the judgment and preliminary decree for partition passed by the Munsiff's Court, Kannur in O.S. No. 110 of 1997. Parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as in the trial court for easy reference.

(3.) THE defendants 2 and 3 contended that the plaint B schedule property is not property of the thavazhi; instead, it is the self acquired property of Paatti and Pythal as per Ext.A2, marupat dated 21.08.1919. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get division of the plaint B schedule. The defendants 5, 6 , 8 and 9 denied that the plaint B schedule was taken by Karuvan on behalf of the thavazhi. It is not correct to say that Paatti and Pythal had obtained marupat on behalf of the thavazhi. They claimed that it is the self acquisition of Paatti and Pythal.