The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of res judicata under S.11, CPC, and the scope of 'court of limited jurisdiction' as per Explanation VIII.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 37 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court. Tellicherry are the appellants in this appeal. They instituted the suit for partition and recovery of possession of 10/14 shares in the plaint B schedule properties on the basis that they belonged to an undivided tavazhy consisting of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The defendants contended that items Nos. I and 2 of the plaint B schedule alone belonged to the tavazhy and are available for partition and that the remaining items included in the plaint B schedule are the separate acquisitions and that the tavazhy has no right, title or interest in the rest of the properties included in the plaint B schedule. It was also contended by the defendants that the plaintiffs are barred by res judicata from putting forward the plea that plaint items Nos. 3 to 15 are tavazhy properties by reason of the decision rendered by the Munsiff's Court,

Koothuparamba in O.S. No 149 of 1961 as per the judgment and decree evidenced by Exts B3 and B2, that only plaint B schedule items Nos.1 and 2 belonged to the tavazhy and that the remaining items included in the plaint schedule are not tavazhy properties.

2. The lower court upheld the contention put forward by the defendants that Exts. B2 and B3 operate as res judicata against the plaintiffs in respect of the claim for partition of plaint items Nos 3 to 14. On the merits also the court below found that what is available for partition as the common asset belonging to the tavazhy is only the tenancy right in plaint B schedule items Nos.1 and 2 inclusive of the house situated therein and that the remaining items Nos. 3 to 14 of the plaint B schedule do not belong to the tavazhy. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were granted a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of 10/14 shares in items Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint B schedule only, with proportionate share of profits from the same for three years prior to the institution of the suit, and future mesne profits.

3. The correctness of the aforesaid conclusions recorded by the court below is challenged by the appellants in this appeal.

4. The plaintiffs have claimed a partition of the properties included in the plaint B schedule on the allegation that they belonged to the tavazhy of one Mathu Amma, wife of Chandu Nair. Mathu Amma had seven children six sons and one daughter. Two of the sons, namely, Kumaran and Sankaran, are no more. Defendants Nos. I to 4 are the remaining four sons and the 1st plaintiff Devaki Amma is the daughter of Mathu Amma. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 7 are the children of Devaki Amma and plaintiffs Nos. 8 to 10 are her grandchildren through the 2nd plaintiff.

5. O.S. No. 149 of 1961 of the Munsiff's Court, Koothuparamba was a suit instituted by the 1st plaintiff and her children (plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 7) along with another son of the 1st plaintiff by name Ravichandran, who has since died, against the present defendants Nos.1 to 4 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 125/- by way of maintenance from out of the present plaint B schedule properties on the allegation that those properties belonged to the tavazhy and the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for maintenance charged on those properties. The defendants contended in that suit that excepting for the present plaint B schedule items Nos. I and 2 (which were plaint items Nos.1 and 2 in the earlier suit also) the remaining items did not belong to the tavazhy and hence the plaintiffs were not entitled to any decree for maintenance charged on those items. Issue No 1 raised in that suit was Whether plaint items 3 to 12 belonged to the tavazhy"? The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in respect of the said question and after a detailed consideration of such evidence the Munsiff's Court held in the judgment Ext. B3 that plaint items Nos. 3 to 12 (corresponding to items Nos. 3 to 14 of the plaint B schedule in the present suit) did not belong to the tavazhy of the plaintiffs and th