The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish a clear and conclusive evidence of partition, including the burden of proof and the significance of various circumstances in determining the status of division under Hindu Law.

1. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 are the appellants. The 1st defendant-appellant died and the 3rd defendant-appellant has been recorded as his legal representative. The plaintiff and the other defendants are the respondents. The parties are "Plappallies" who are a caste peculiar to Travancore (There are only one or two families). They do not enjoy any of the privileges of the Ampalavasie. The males are invested with the sacred thread in the sixteenth year. Formerly the Ilayathus officiated as their priests, but now the service is performed by Namputhiris or Pottis. The girls have the thalikettu celebrated, the thali being tied by the Aryapattar. The women marry Brahmins. The Plappallies are marumakkathayis. (Page 834,

Travancore State Manual, Vol. I).

2. The family name of the parties is Kiliyat. It had three sakhas having several houses in each. In the first sakha there are three houses called "Pozhisseril", "Pathiyil" and "Vadakamparampu". In the second sakha, there are four houses namely, "Muringanat", "Vadakke Kiliyat", "Kiliyat" and "Madathilparampu". In the third sakha there are three houses called "Plappally Matom", 'Kaithakat" and "Thaikkattusseri".

3. It is the common case of both the parties that "Kiliyat" was an undivided tarwad whose members resided in the aforesaid ten houses. It is also admitted that the tarwad had properties in the shape of parambas and paddy plots. In the ozuku of the year 1012 the registry of those properties was in the name of the common karnavan. The ayacut of the year 1014 followed the ozhuku registry.

4. The plaintiff and defendants 11 to 19 are members of the Pozhisseri house, while defendants 1 to 10 are members of the Pathiyil house, both of which belonged to the first sakha aforesaid.

5. The suit out of which this appeal arises was for setting aside the decree in O.S. 63 of 1105 of the Alleppey District Court, wherein Pozhisseri and Pathiyil houses were the contending parties. Ext. P is the judgment of the District Judge and Ext. XV is the judgment of the erstwhile Travancore High Court which confirmed it. Soon after the judgment of the High Court, the parties entered into an Udampadi, Ext. XXVIII, whereunder specific properties were allotted for the maintenance of the various branches as shown in that document. All the major members of both Pozhisseril and Pathiyil houses were parties to Ext. XXVIII. The judgments Exts. P and XXV declared, upholding the plea of the Pathiyil house, that these two houses were undivided, all the members thereof having community of property. The Udampadi, Ext. XXVIII, proceeded upon this basis. That was in the year 1109.

6. In Medom 1114, the members of the Pathiyil house divided the properties allotted to them under Ext. XXVIII as also other properties (See Ext. R). The present suit was filed in Mithunam 1114 seeking to set aside the judgments, Ext. P and XXV as also Ext. XXVIII. Ext. R was also sought to be set aside in so far as it related to the properties comprised in the plaint.

7. The plaint alleged that there was a partition between the ten houses comprised in the original tarwad, many generations ago. The aforesaid judgments to which the plaintiff was not a party eo nomine, were condemned as having been obtained by fraud and collusion. The subsequent udampadi and partition, Exts. XXVIII and R were also condemned for similar reasons. The averments in the plaint were vague, general and devoid of particulars.

8. The defendants resisted the claim contending inter alia that the Pathiyil house always was and continued to be undivided from the Pozhisseril house. Possession of properties by the Pozhisseril house was ascribed to an arrangement for maintenance. The allegation of fraud and collusion was repudiated. A plea of limitation was also raised along with some other minor pleas.

9. The court below framed as many as ten issues in the case none of which, however, serves the purpose for which issues are directed to be settled. The issues must relate to the m