SANKUNNI PANNIKAR Vs. RAMA PANNIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4 defendant in his written statement pleaded that chathakot was a branch of Parappathodi and also pleaded that chathakot was never divided from Parappathodi. The first issue dealt with this plea of the 4 defendant and the second part of the issue raised the point whether chathakot was a portion of Parappathodi. It is true that in the issue it meant undivided portion as shown by the contract to the former part of the issue. Still it raised the question whether, divided or undivided, it was really an off-shoot of Parappathodi.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge found in para. 3 that all the four tarwads including chathakot are separate but he gave no date for the separation of chathakot. The earliest of the documents he refers to is dated 1894 Ex. JJ. In the next para. 4 he took up the question whether chathakot is nearer than the others and finds that it is an off-shoot of Parappathodi. We do not think there is any surprise to the plaintiff in recording such a finding.

(3.) We agree with Phillips, J., in accepting the finding chathakot is nearer the Parappathodi and also chathakot separated last. On any view of the law, the 4 defendant's tarwad has preferential right and the suit is rightly dismissed.