The plaintiff in O.S. No. 52 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur is the appellant in this appeal. The aforesaid suit instituted by the appellant was one for partition and separate possession of ¼ share over 8 items of immovable properties altogether admesuring 2.85 acres scheduled to the plaint. The properties are situated in the Vadanappilly village of Chavakkad Taluk which was part of the erstwhile South Malabar area.

2. All the 8 items of plaint schedule properties belonged to one Paran as allotted to him under Ext.A1 partition deed dated 04.11.1941. The parties are admittedly thiyas of South Malabar. Paran died in May, 1963 leaving behind him his widow Madhavi who was the first defendant who also died pending this appeal on 22.04.1998 and two daughters and one son. The plaintiff Padmakshy and the 3rd defendant Santhakumari are the two daughters of Paran and the 2nd defendant Ramakrishnan is the only son of Paran.

3. The case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows:-

The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to deceased Paran, the husband of the 1st defendant and father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff and the defendants are the only legal heirs of deceased Paran. On the death of Paran, ¼ right over the properties devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendants each and they are in joint possession of the properties. Defendants 1 and 2 are residing in the house in the plaint schedule property. To the demand made by the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 were avoiding the plaintiff which necessitated the plaintiff to send Ext.A2 lawyer notice dated 24.10.1991 demanding partition. The 2nd defendant has caused Ext.A3 reply raising untenable contentions and stating that the plaintiff is entitled to get only 1/8 share. The plaint schedule property will fetch an annual income of Rs.10,000/-. The plaintiff, therefore, prays for partition and separate possession of her ¼ share with future profits.

4. The 3rd defendant remained ex parte. The suit was resisted by defendants 1 and 2 who filed a joint written statement contending inter alia as follows:-

5. The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to Paran, the common ancestor as per Ext.A1 partition. The plaint schedule properties were set apart to the share of Paran in the family partition. Deceased Paran and his legal heirs who are the plaintiffs and the defendants, belonged to the thiyya community of Vadanappilly village which was part of the erstwhile Malabar District of the State of Madras. The parties follow the Hindu Law of inheritance as per which the 2nd defendant has got a right by birth along with Paran over the suit properties which are ancestral properties and he therefore became a co­parcenar having = right over the suit properties. Paran died in the year 1963. The half right of Paran on his death devolved upon the plaintiff and the three defendants equally. Therefore, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are each entitled to 1/8 shares in the properties. The 2nd defendant is entitled to = share in his capacity as the co-parcenar and also 1/3 share of the other = share of Paran who died in the year 1963. The allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff is in joint possession of the properties is false. Defendants 1 and 2 are residing in the house in the property. The plaintiff is residing with her husband after her marriage. The 2nd defendant has effected extensive improvements by spending large amounts out of his pocket. He has put up a house,

cattle shed, well and a tank on the northern side of the family house. After the death of Paran, the 2nd defendant has also discharged the debts of Paran. The plaint allegation that the properties will fetch an annual income of Rs.10,000/- is not correct. The annual income from the properties would be only Rs.7000/-. The claim of the plaintiff is, therefore, not sustainable.

6. The court below framed the following issues for trial.

1. What is the share to which the plaint