Kurian Joseph, J.

Blood is thicker than water is a proverb first recorded about 1412, indicating stronger bonds within the family. Water is thinner and leaves no mark on evaporation; blood on the contrary is thicker and always leaves a stain. There is no difficulty in effecting partition of family property when the stain is fresh. But thinner the stain owing to passage of time, more difficult and complicated is the process of partition since the relationship among the members is distanced, if not strained. This is the crux of the problem in these cases, perhaps the oldest before this court. During the beginning of the 20th century one Karathotti and Matha did not deem it serious to partition their family property. They had six children namely (1) Kunhikannan, (2) Chathan, (3) Manikkam, (4) Paru, (5) Karinji and (6) Mathu. It is not in dispute that Kunhikannan had released his rights in the properties in favour of others. So the dispute is only with regard to the descendants of the rest five children. That lead to the filing of O.S.No.102/1980 on the file of the Sub Court, Badagara. The plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 are the legal representatives of Govindan, the only son of Paru. Defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Karinji. During the pendency of the legal proceedings, the legal representatives of the parties had to be impleaded and hence the voluminous cause title.

2. A preliminary decree in O.S. No. 102/1980 of Sub Court Vadakara was passed allotting shares to Plaintiffs and defendants 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 (Who are respondents Nos. 1 to 19, 23 to 29 and 31 to 40 in AS. No. 250 of 1987) to the following effect:

I. The plaint Schedule items 1, 9 and 13 (excluding the house in 9) shall be divided as below:

i. Plaintiffs 1 to 6 and Defendants 3 to 5 (Respondents 1 to 9) will together take 68/330 shares in the said plaint Schedule items 1, 9 and 13.

ii. Deceased defendants 6 & 7 (now by surviving Respondents 47 to 50) will together take 22/330 shares in the plaint Schedule items 1, 9 and 13.

iii. Defendants 11 to 15 and 27 to 29 (now by surviving Respondents 14, 17, 27 to 29, 38 & 39, 40 to 42 and 51 to 55) will together take 183/330 shares in the said plaint Schedule items 1, 9 and 13.

iv. Defendants 16 to 21 (Respondents 18-23) will together take 22/330 shares in the said plaint Schedule items 1, 9 and 13.

v. Defendants 29 to 34 (now by surviving Respondents 32 to 35 and 43 to 46) will together take 35/330 shares in the said plaint Schedule items 1, 9 and 13.

II. Theplaint Schedule items 2 to 8, 10 to 12 and 14 to be divided as below: and Cross Objections.

i. Plaintiffs 1 to 6 and Defendants 3 to 5 (now by surviving Respondents 2 to 9) will together take 26/88 shares in the plaint Schedule items 2 to 8, 10 to 12 and 14

ii. Defendants 11 to 15 and 27 to 29 (now by surviving Respondents 14, 17, 27 to 29, 38 & 39, 40 to 42 and 51 to 55) will together take 49/88 shares in the plaint Schedule items 2 to 8, 10 to 12 and 14.

iii. Defendants 29 to 34 (now by surviving Respondents 32 to 35 and 43 to 46) will together take 13/88 shares in the plaint Schedule items 2 to 8, 10 to 12 and 14.

iv. The plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 are liable to pay mesne profits to defendants 16 to 21, defendants 6 and 7 and defendants 29 to 34, defendants 11 to 15 and 25 to 28 with respect to item 1, 9 and 14. The plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 are liable to pay mesne profits to defendants 11 to 15 and 25 to 28 and 29 to 34 with respect to items 2 to 8, 10 to 12 and 14 from the date of suit till they get possession. The quantum can be decided in the final decree proceedings.

v. The equities which defendants 29 to 34 claims can be considered at the time of the final decree proceedings.

3. Thesaid decree excludes the branches of Manickam fully and Chathan partially. Manickams branch include deceased D8 and D23 to D25 (Respondents 24 to 26), grand children born to Kumaran, the only son of Manickam. Chathans br