S.Sankarasubban, J.

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S. No.37 of 1985 on the file of the sub court, Kasaragod. Appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was filed on the following allegations:

2. The plaintiffs and defendants are related to each other as set out in the genealogy given in the end of the plaint. The plaintiffs and defendants are Bunts by caste. Who were formerly governed by the Madras Aliyasanthana Act until this Act was repealed by Kerala Act 30/1976. The properties described in a schedule were allotted to the share of the Kavaru of Chomu shown in the plant genealogy in O.S. No.291 of 1949 on the file of Principal Sub Court, South Kanara.

3. The properties described in plaint B schedule belonging in jenm to the Kavaru of Chomu, were outstanding on usufructuary mortgage. The mortgage was redeemed since then and possession of the redeemed properties was obtained by the Kavaru. The properties described in plaint C schedule from direct Kumki and lagthi to plaint A and B schedule properties. The kavaru has effected vast and valuable improvements in plaint C schedule properties. Applications for assignment to the Kavaru of plaint C schedule properties on darkhast are pending disposal.

4. The first defendant is one Chikkappa Rai. In or about 1965, he put the second defendant, fourth defendant and the deceased Pammunhi, in possession of some items of plaint A schedule properties for the sake of convenience of enjoyment retaining with him possession of the bulk of the properties as the Ejman and Manager of the Kavaru. In or about 1969, differences cropped up between the second defendant, fourth defendant and Pammunhi. The first defendant directed the second defendant, fourth defendant and Pammunhi to enjoy the properties separately. Since 1969, the second defendant fourth defendant and Pammunhi began to enjoy different items of properties separately for the sake of convenience of enjoyment. Pammunhi died in or about 1977. On her death, the second defendant began to cultivate the properties that were formerely being enjoyed by pammunhi. Now bulk of suit properties are in the possession of the second defendant. Some items are in the possession of the first defendant. A few items are in the possession of the fourth defendant. The other parties to the suit, including the plaintiffs are not in actual possession of any item of properties.

5. The first plaintiff was given in marriage in July, 1973. Since her marriage, the first plaintiff and her children plaintiffs 2 and 3 are residing in the house of the first plaintiff’s husband. In the family house, every year, “Kola” of Bheemavathi and other “Daivas” has to be performed simultaneously with “Dharma Nema”. The other viniyogas to be performed annually in the family house are “Hariseva”, “Deepavali” and “Thambilas”. Once in a year, a function has to be held to propitiate the dead family members. Provisions have to be made in the suit for the performance of all these viniyogas and functions. Plaint A to D schedule properties are in the joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs were not paid their share of the income of the suit properties after 1982. Hence the suit was filed for partition of plaint A to D schedule properties into 9 equal shares with metes and bounds and to allot 3 such shares to the plaintiffs and to put them in possession and enjoyment of the same with their share of the income of the properties for the past three years and direct the payment of future profits to the plaintiffs.

6. The plaintiffs case is that Chomu is the Ejamanathi and the properties were allotted to her in the partition suit of 1949. Chomu had four children, Chikkappa Rai (first defendant), Ramakke, Deranna Rai(second defendant) and Balakrishna Rai (third defendant). Vishwanatha Rai (fourth defendant), Subbanna Rai (fifth defendant), Battu alias Battunhi Rai (sixth defendant) and Muthakke alias Kalavathi (