The main legal point established in the judgment is that immovable property, such as the house in England, should be divided according to the law of the country where the property is situated, regardless of subsequent conversion into money.

1. The 1st defendant in a suit for partition of the assets of a person named Dr. Krishnan, who died in England on 18th October 1950, is the appellant; and the dispute is confined to the assets included in Sch. C to the plaint. These assets constitute the sale proceeds of the properties left by Dr. Krishnan in England, both immovable and movable, consisting of a house and other movables. The assets amount to Rs 1,18,075 and that amount is now in deposit within the jurisdiction of the lower court.

2. Three Ezhava brothers, Sankaran Padmanabhan, Sankaran Krishnan (deceased Dr. Krishnan) and Dr. Sankaran Govindan (1st defendant), and a sister, the 2nd defendant, were the children of late Sankaran

belonging to the erstwhile Travancore State. Dr. Krishnan left fox England in 1920 for higher studies in medicine. For some time he received remittances from home; but after his father's death his elder brother, Padmanabhan, did not send regular remittances and therefore Dr. Krishnan was stranded in England. He met an elderly lady, Miss Hepworth; and she helped him to prosecute his studies. He qualified himself in medicine and started practice at Sheffield and was able to build up a comfortable practice. Subsequently he got employed in the National Health Scheme; and he purchased a building, 75-Wood House Road, Sheffield, where he housed his evening surgery. He was living in a rented house at 97-Prince of Wales Road with Miss Hepworth. He had at the time of his death a private secretary named Miss Esme Mary Woodliff.

3. In 1946 Dr. Govindan, the 1st defendant proceeded to England, according to him, with the double purpose to qualify himself for F.R.C.S. and to bring back his brother, Dr. Krishnan. He prosecuted his studies in England, for which Dr. Krishnan helped him with money; and ultimately, during the close of 1949, he returned to India. Dr. Krishnan did not accompany him; and he died in England suddenly on 18th October 1950 without leaving a will. He left no wife nor children, and his assets in England, as stated already, were the immovable property, viz., the house at 75-Wood House Road, Sheffield, and other movables.

4. While Dr. Krishnan was away in England, there was a partition in his family, under which a share was allotted to him also. This was taken by his elder brother, Padmanabhan, who managed the same until he died. The properties included in Schs. A and B to the plaint are the properties allotted to Dr. Krishnan in the family partition and there is no dispute now regarding them.

5. The 2nd defendant, as stated already, is the sister of late Padmanabhan, late Dr. Krishnan and the 1st defendant. The 1st plaintiff is the daughter of the 2nd defendant and plaintiffs 2 to 6 are the 1st plaintiffs children. It is not necessary to give details regarding the others on the party array, excepting to mention that additional defendants 22 and 23 are Mr. Cyril Rawlin Arksey, solicitor, and Miss Esme Mary Woodliff, private secretary respectively, of late Dr. Krishnan, who were the administrators of his estate in England appointed by the High Court of judicature there. The suit was originally laid for partitioning the properties in Schs. A and B alone, and the suit was instituted within a year of Dr. Krishnan's demise. Subsequently, proceedings were started in England by Mr. Arksey and Miss Woodliff for administering his estate there; and they obtained the order Ex. LVI, from the High Court of Judicature in England. The house and the movables were sold and the entire assets were divided between the 1st and 2nd defendants in halves after meeting the expenses of administration. The administrators handed over the amount to defendants 1 and 2 taking a bond of indemnity from them; and the amount is now in deposit within the jurisdiction of the lower court. After the administration in England was completed, the plaint was amended adding Son. C and also claiming partition of the assets included therein. The plaintiffs claimed 6 out of