Sankaransubban, J.

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 323 of 1988 of the Sub court, Kottayam. Plaintiff is the daughter of one P.V. Issac. First defendant is her mother. Defendants 2 to 4 are her brothers and sister. The suit was filed for partition of plaint A schedule immovable properties and plaint B schedule movable properties.

2. According to the plaintiff, the properties scheduled in A and B of the plaint belonged to late P.V. Issac, Palathinkal House, T.B. Road, Kottayam. He died on 18.12.1960 at Bangalore. He died intestate. Issac and the plaintiff and the defendants are Indian Christians and they are governed by the Indian Succession Act. The above Act was extended to Travancore-cochin State by the Part B State (Laws) Act 1951 (Act 3 of 1951) from 1.4.1951 onwards. On the date of the death of Issac, his heirs were the plaintiff and the four defendants. Under Sec. 33 of the Indian Succession Act, the first defendants - wife would be entitled to 1/3 share over the suit property and the remaining 2/3 share will go to his children who are the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6 share over the property scheduled to the plaint. It is further stated that late Issac executed a settlement deed with regard to plaint A schedule properties by document No. 3184/1959 of the Kottayam Sub Registry in favour of the first defendant creating a life estate in her favour over A schedule properties. That is dated 17th November, 1959. This was accepted by all the parties that the properties belonged to Issac without any dispute. The plaintiff's father had another property at Ooty, the right, title and possession over which now belong only to the plaintiff by virtue of documents executed by the defendants and they have no right over that property. Plaint B schedule properties are the items of furniture, movables of everyday use, curios, artifacts, antiques, chinaware, dinner set, silver tea set, bed steads, panchaloha idols etc., which were owned, collected and kept by Issac at Palathinkal house, item No. 1 of plaint A schedule. They are very valuable.

3. So far as the Christians in Travancore area are concerned, they were govered by the Travancore Christian Succession Act. After the extension of Indian Succession Act. After the extension of Indian Succession Act under Part B State (Laws) Act, 1951, the Travancore - Cochin High Court in the decision reported in Angusthy v. Devassy Aley - 1956 K.L.T. 559 held that the succession to the properties is governed by the Travancore Christian Succession Act. The plaintiff filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that the Travancore Christian Succession Act 1092 is not applicable to the Indian Christian Community in the territories originally forming part of the erstwhile State of Travancore - cochin on and from the date of coming into force of the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, it is the Indian Succession Act that is applicable. The Supreme Court by judgment dated 24.2.1986 in Mary Roy and Others v. State of Kerala and others - 1986 K.L.T. 502 declared that on the coming into force of Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 on 1.4.1951, the Travancore Christian Succession Act stood repealed on Chapter II of Part V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 became applicable. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to a share under the Indian Succession Act.

4. It is true that the first defendant has a life interest over the property. But the plaintiff came to understand that the defendants were attempting to create some documents and create some documents and create difficulties to the plaintiff to get her share in plaint A and B schedule properties. Defendants 1 and 3 have already created some documents alienating the portions of plaint A schedule item No. 1 to some strangers and have also encumbered plaint A schedule items to more than Rs. 40 lakhs to the State Bank of Tracancore. Defendants 1 and 3 have no right to alienate or encumb