Against the judgement and decree in O.S. No. 517 of 1989 on the file of the principal sub court , Ernakkulam , this appeal is filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are the children of late ouseph and his wife Rosa. The first defendant passed away and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional defendants 4 to 9. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property. The case of the plaintiffs is that late Ouseph , the father of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 was the varamdar of the plaint schedule property . Their father Ouseph died on 21. 10. 1960 and on his death, his wife Rosa was cultivating the paddy field as legal representative of the deceased. After the commencement of the Land Reforms act the right , title and interest over the property was purchased by the mother in her name as per order in O.A. No.801 of 1970 of the Land Tribunal. The purchase certificate was obtained by the mother for and on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendants. Since the brothers are not amenable for the partition of property. The plaintiffs filed the suit.

2. The second defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiffs and contended that the plaintiffs have no right, title of interest over the property. As per the sale deed dated 19.3.1983 executed by Balakrishna Menon and Sankara Menon and the release deed dated 23.3.1983 executed by Thankam alias Narayani Amma, the 2nd defendant became the absolute owner of the property and it is in his possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff did not inherit any right in the schedule property. The purchase certificate obtained by the mother and first defendant will not affect the right of the second defendant. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

3. The first defendant filled a written statement contending that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any share in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs are given away in marriage on payment of Sthreedhanam and ornaments. In 1960, they were governed by the Cochin Christian Succession Act. The plaintiffs who are married daughters are not entitled to get any share. In 1960 varam right was not heritable. Varamder had no possession of the land. So, on the death of Ouseph, plaintiffs did not inherit any property. The first defendant was the varamdar of the plaint schedule property. He purvhased the jenm right through the Land Tribunal. In order to please his aged mother, her name was also included in the purchase certificate. She did not cultivate on varam. The plaintiffs have no right in the property and they have no possession also. Even if it is found that the plaintiffs have any right over the property is lost by adverse possession. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Additional defendants 4, 8 and 9 filled a separate written statement raising similar contention as that of the first defendant. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed 5 issues. On the side of the plaintiffs PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exts. A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the defendants no evidence was adduced. The court below after trial dismissed the suit against which the plaintiffs filed this appeal.

5. During the pendency of the appeal, the first appellant died and his legal representative was impleaded as additional appellants 4 to 10. The second respondent also died and his legal representative was impleaded as additional respondent No.10.

6. The question to be considered is whether there is any reason to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to their father late Ouseph as a varamdar. He died in 1960 and after his death the property devolved on his wife Rosa and children, the plaintiffs and defendants. After the death of Ouseph, their mother Rosa was cultivating the land on behalf of other legal heirs of deceased Ouseph. As per the plaintiff, they are entitled to get 3/6 shares