CHERAMPENNU Vs. NEELAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition of thavazhi properties. The parties are Kuravas. There are eight items of immovable property in the schedule attached to the plaint. The courts below have by concurrent decrees dismissed the suit in respect of items 5 to 8 which were gifted to the first defendant by his mother Kanni's sister, Kochayya, on the ground that the first defendant had perfected title by prescription. As regards item's 1 to 4 which were gifted by Kochayya to all the children of Kanni the plaintiffs wore given a decree for one sixth share, on a stirpital basis. The plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal from the concurrent decrees in the suit.

(2.) Madhavan Nair, J., who heard the second appeal expressed the view that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief in respect of items 5 to 8 gifted to the first defendant under Ext. A dated 13-3-1111. The case was however referred to a Bench for decision as doubt was felt whether partition of items 1 to 4 was to be on a stirpital or per capita basis.

(3.) We concur with the view expressed by the courts below and Madhavan Nair, J., as regards items 5 to 8 and hold that the suit must fail in respect of these items. The only question which remains is whether partition of the other items should be on a stirpital or per capita basis.