The plaintiff in OS 114/85 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Certhala, is the appellant in this second appeal. The said suit was one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s one half share over one item of immovable property described into the plaint the A schedule. The plaintiff also prayed for partition and separate possession of her half share over the plaint B schedule movables in case the plaintiff’s contention that they exclusively belong to the plaintiff’s not upheld.

2. The case of the plaintiff can be summarized as follows:

The plaint A schedule property belonged to Sanku Kumaran who died on 27.2.1984. After the death of Sanku Kumaran the plaint A and B schedule properties are in the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the second wife of the said Sanku Kumaran and the defendant is the son born to Sanku Kumaran in his first wife. The marriage between Sanku kumaran and his first wife was divorced through court on 31.1.62. The plaintiff and the defendant are in joint possession of the plaint A schedule property. Since the defendant is causing unnecessary troubles to the plaintiff, she is no more desirous of continuing the joint possession. Hence the suit for partition of the plaint A schedule property into two equal shares and allotment of the plaintiff’s half share to the plaintiff. The movables described in the plaint B schedule properties exclusively belong to the plaintiff and deceased Sanku Kumaran had no rights over the same. In case the court finds that the said items are also partible, the plaintiff may be given her half share over the same as well.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending inter alias as follows:

The suit is not maintainable. The plaint A Schedule property absolutely belonged to deceased Sanku Kumaran who was also the owner of the movables found in the plaint A schedule building. The case of the plaintiff that she is the second wife of deceased Sanku Kumaran is false. There was no marriage between the plaintiff and Sanku Kumaran as alleged. The plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. This defendant is the sole legal representative of Sanku Kumaran. Sanku Kumaran was residing alone in his house after divorcing his first wife. The plaintiff was a servant staying in the house of Sanku Kumaran and attending to his family affairs. They have never resided as man and wife. The claim of the plaintiff that she is in joint possession of the A schedule property along with the defendant is false. The plaintiff merely continued her residence in the house of deceased Sanku Kumaran after his death with the assistance of certain elements in that locality. The plaintiff is liable to be evicted from the building. This defendant is entitled to recovery of possession of the properties from the plaintiff. The plaintiff had, by undue influence exercised of Sanku Kumaran, appropriated Rs.27,500/- from him which was received by him from the Toddy Workers’ Welfare Fund. Similarly, a sum of Rs.11,500/- had been deposited by Sanku Kumaran in the bank in the name of the plaintiff. The suit properties are not liable to be partitioned as alleged.

4. By an additional written statement the defendant further contended that the plaintiff did not have sufficient means to purchase the movables mentioned in the plaint B schedule and that those movables absolutely belonged to Sanku Kumaran.

5. The learned Munsiff framed seven issues for trial. On the side of the plaintiff two witnesses were examined as PWs.1 and 2, of whom PW.1 is the plaintiff herself, and 11 documents were got marked as Exts.A1 to A11. On the side of the defendant he examined himself as DW.1. No documentary evidence was adduced by the defendant.

6. The learned Munsif, after trial, as per judgment and decree dt.30.6.1986 upheld the contentions of the plaintiff and passed a preliminary decree for partition in respect of the plaint A schedule property as prayed for. On appeal by the defendant as AS 18/1993, the