The main legal point established in the judgment is that the subsequent act or conduct of the parties can be considered to interpret the true meaning of a deed, especially when there is doubt or ambiguity.

Plaintiffs 2 to 5 in O.S.No.75 of 1982, Munsiffs Court, Kuthuparamba, are the appellants in this appeal. The first plaintiff and the defendants in the suit are the respondents herein.

2. The following questions have been formulated as substantial questions of law in the appeal memorandum:

"a) Whether on a true interpretation of its various terms in Ext. A2 document does not without any ambiguity show that it is only a maintenance arrangement and not a deed of partition?

b) Could the subsequent conduct of parties evidenced by documents like Exts. B15 to B20 be relied upon to interpret Ext. A2 as a deed of partition?

c) Whether under the circumstances, the courts below were justified in treating Ext. A2 as a deed of partition?

d) Could the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs be treated as one bad for partial partition and could the suit under these circumstances liable to be dismissed on that ground?

e) Is the question of bona fides relevant for consideration under the circumstances? This Court ordered notice on 16-7-1987, though no specific substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission.

3. The suit was one for partition and for separate allotment of plaintiffs' 21/56 shares. The plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 5, the father of defendants 6 to 8 and father of defendants 21 and 22 are members of Parayikandy tarwad. A registered 'nischaya karar' dated 31-10-1927 (Ext. A2) was entered into between the members of the Parayikandy tarwad; thereby the properties were divided into three Schedules and set apart to three groups. The plaintiffs alleged that it was for the maintenance of the members. The plaintiffs contended that Ext. A2 is only an arrangement for maintenance. According to the contesting defendants (defendants 17,20 and 21), Ext. A2 dated 31-10-1927 is a partition, the crucial question that arose for consideration was whether Ext. A2 dated 31-10-1927 is a partition or only a maintenance arrangement. If it was a partition deed, the present suit for partition will not lie; if on the other hand, Ext. A2 was only a maintenance arrangement, the suit was competent. The trial court held that Ext. A2 is a partition deed and dismissed the suit by judgment dated 14-6-1985. The plaintiffs carried the matter by way of appeal before the District Court, Tellicherry. The appellate court concurred with the judgment and decree of the trial court and held that Ext. A2 is a partition deed. It is thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed the above second appeal.

4. I heard counsel. The only question argued at the time of hearing of the appeal was that Ext. A2 is only a maintenance arrangement and not a deed of partition and that the courts below erred in looking into the subsequent conduct of the parties, evidenced by Exts. B15 to B20 to interpret Ext. A2 as a deed of partition. The trial court held that there is clinching evidence in this case to show that the dominant intention of the parties at the time of execution of Ext. A2 was to partition the properties. After referring to Exts. B15 to B20, and in particular Ext. B20, wherein the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 had admitted that Ext. A2 is a partition deed, as opposed to the present plea that that is only a maintenance arrangement, it was held that the conduct of the parties, namely, the executants of Ext. A2, shows that Ext. A2 is an outright partition. Ext. B15 is dated 28-10-46, Ext. B16 in dated 19-7-50, -Ext. B17 is dated 24-8-54, Ext. B18 is dated 12-3-58, Ext. B19 is dated 8-8-58 and Ext. B20 is dated 13-2-63. The deeds evidenced by Exts. B15 to B20 are transactions entered into by the members of the Parayikandy tarwad, nearly 20 to 30 years after Ext. A2. After adverting to this aspect, the lower appellate court held that nearly 20 years after Ext. A2 and 30 years before suit, in Ext. B15 dated 20-10-46 the plaintiffs had categorically stated and held out that Ext. A2 is a deed of partition. They partitioned the properties obtained as per Ext. A2 by Ex