BRIJESH HARIDAS Vs. RAMACHANDRAN @ UNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from a decree by which the trial court dismissed the suit for partition. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents the defendants. Plaint B schedule immovable property belonged to Raru, grandfather of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. Raru died in 1991. On the allegation that Raru bequeathed the property to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 and they became equally entitled to it the plaintiff instituted the suit for division of the property into six and separation of his share. Later, defendants 6 to 8 were impleaded on the allegation that they claimed right over a portion of the plaint B schedule property which has been described in the plaint C schedule. Defendants 1 to 5 did not contest the suit. Defendants 6 to 8 filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 have no right, title or interest in the property which is in their possession and it lies within well defined boundaries and it is not part of plaint B schedule property. After the trial the learned Sub Judge found that there is no evidence to prove that the plaint C schedule property is part of the plaint B schedule property which is sought to be partitioned and the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the suit and accordingly, he dismissed the suit.

(2.) The following points arise for consideration.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents 6 to 8.