KAYAKKAL LAKSHMI Vs. KAYAKKAL ANANDAN (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are, the appellants. The suit is for partition of 20/28 stares in the A schedule one item of immovable property and the B schedule movable mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiffs claim partition on the basis that the properties belong to the tavazhi of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The tavazhi consists of the descendants of one Manni. She had three children Kalliani, Anandan (1st defendant) and Devaki Plaintiffs 1 and 10 and defendants 2 and 3 are the children of Kalliani and the 4th defendant is the daughter of Devaki.

(2.) The defence to the suit is that the A schedule property is not tavazhi property, the same belonged in tenancy in common to Manni and her three children, and after the death of Manni each of her children is entitled to 1/3 share in the property. The defendants deny the existence of the B schedule movable and according to them no movable are available for partition. The Trial Court held that the plaint A schedule property is not tavazhi property, it is the acquisition of Manni and her children Kalliani, Anandan and Devaki, and after the death of Manni, each of her children is entitled to 1/3 share in the property. A preliminary decree was passed for partition of the property into 12 shares and for allotment of one share each to the plaintiffs 1 and 10 and defendants 2 and 3, and 4 shares each to defendants 1 and 4. The plaintiffs who are admittedly in possession of the A schedule property are held liable for the share of profits due to the other shares, the quantum of which was left for decision in the final decree proceedings. A house constructed by the plaintiffs is directed to be reserved in their favour. The claim for partition of the B schedule movable properties was rejected on the ground that there is no proof of the existence of such movable.

(3.) The lower appellate court has confirmed the preliminary decree except for a modification in regard to the decree for profits fixing the liability on plaintiffs 1 and 10, who alone among the plaintiffs are the sharers as per the decree. It is against this that the plaintiffs have come up in Second Appeal.