M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.

Can a plaintiff in a partition or title suit abstain from production of the documents under which he claims title on the plea that his title remains undisputed by the defendant? Should the court insist that notwithstanding the plea he should produce the relevant title deeds if at all he should get a decree? Can such additional evidence be admitted at the stage of Second Appeal? Is there a presumption that the property obtained by an Ezhava female of the erstwhile Travaacore area, was taken for and on behalf of her Tavazhi? These are some of the questions that arise for consideration in this case.

2. The grievance raised in this Second Appeal by the plaintiff in O.S.Ho.203/96 of the Sub Court, Cherthala, is that as against half share that he claimed over the schedule properties, he was allotted only 3/8 share based on the defence contention that the common predecessor (Parvathy Amma) got it as family property; the parties being governed by the Marumakkathayanm Law.

3. On the arguments advanced by the appellant, the points that arise for decision are:

(1) Whether Parvathy Amma common predcessor of the parties got the properties as Tharwad property?

(2)