The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of inheritance rights under the Cochin Christian Succession Act and the Indian Succession Act, and the applicability of the decision in Mary Roy v. State of Kerala (1986 KLT. 508) to determine the inheritance rights of the parties.

1. Plaintiff in a partition suit, O.S. No. 414 of 1976 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam is the appellant herein.

2. First defendant was the widow, defendants 2, 6, 7 and 9 are the daughters and plaintiff, defendants 3 to 5, 8 and 10 are the sons of Matheeis, who died on 3-5-1976. Plaint A schedule properties are immovable properties. The plaint in the partition suit contains two schedules, viz., immovable properties in A schedule and movable and outstandings in B schedule. The main dispute regarding partibility related to the two sets of properties. Defendants 3 and 5 to 7 contended that 11.178 cents of land dealt with under Ext. B1 and included in plaint A schedule item 3 was given to them by Matheeis under Ext. B1 and that the building standing thereon also belonged to them and dealt with by them under Ext. B2 and therefore the land and the building is not partible. There was a further contention that certain items of partible properties have not been included in the plaint. Ultimately parties agreed that the dispute regarding those items not included in the plaint could be agitated in a fresh suit. The former contention regarding 11.178 cents of land together with the building was accepted by the court below which held it to be not partible. Accordingly a preliminary decree for partition was passed regarding the plaint schedule properties except Ext. B1 property and Ext. B2 building, shares being determined under the provisions of the Cochin Christian Succession Act, the court having held that the married daughters were not given Sthreedhanam and therefore they are entitled to share. The plaintiff challenges the finding of the court below regarding 11.178 cents of land as well as the building. Defendants 6, 7 and 9 have filed CMP No. 30967 of 1987 praying that this court may direct their shares computed under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act be allotted to them. This court directed that the question be considered in appeal.

3. Thus only two questions arise for consideration in the appeal, viz., whether 11.178 cents of land dealt with in Ext. B1 and the building consisting of four flats standing thereon belonged to Matheeis at the time of his death and are partible or whether they belong absolutely to defendants 3 and 5 to 7 and whether married daughters are entitled the shares as provided in the Indian Succession Act.

4. The building situated in the disputed piece of land consists of four flats. The building is situated in a piece of land which admittedly belonged to Matheeis. On 1-2-1975 defendants 3 and 5 to 7 purported to enter into Ext. B1 partition deed reciting that the building was constructed by them out of their own funds and purporting to divide the four flats in the building among themselves by allotting one flat to each of them. By Ext.B2 dated 25-4-1975, Matheeis purported to execute settlement deed in favour of these four children in regard to 11.178 cents of land reciting therein that the building was constructed by the four children out of their own funds and they have been in enjoyment of the same. Thus he admitted that the building was constructed by the four children and that they were also collecting the rent. Evidently after his death the children attempted to lay claim to the rent. One of the tenants, viz., State Bank of India, who was the tenant in regard to the two flats (allegedly allotted to defendants 6 and 7 under Ext. B1 partition deed) filed an interpleader suit, O.S. No, 390/76, depositing the arrears of rent for the building and surrendering the keys to the court. Defendants 1 to 4 therein are the present first defendant, sixth defendant, 7th defendant and plaintiff respectively. Subsequently four of the other children of Matheeis were impleaded as additional defendants 5 to 8. They are defendants 2, 4, 8 and 10 herein respectively. However, the present 9th defendant was not impleaded in the suit. Present defendants 6 and 7 filed written statement in the suit contending that ti