Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This appeal arises from a suit for partition.

2. Keloth Kunhikannan and the 12th defendant had four sons and two daughters, namely, the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 4 and the 9th defendant. Defendants 5 to 8 are the children of the fourth defendant. Defendants 10 and 11 are the children of the 9th defendant.

3. Kunhikannan executed Ext.A1 registered Will on 07.06.1950. On 30.08.1973, the plaintiff executed Ext.A2 release deed, in the name of his mother, the 12th defendant, stating that it is in favour of the members of the thavazhi. Thereafter, defendants, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 12 entered into Ext.B3 on 29.09.1978, by which, they agreed to partition the properties dealt with in Exts.A1 and A2.

4. Thereafter, the suit from which this appeal arises was filed in 1994; the plaintiff claiming partition of the properties dealt with in Ext.A1 as if it was an allotment inuring only to him, his mother the 12th defendant and his siblings – defendants 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9.

5. Defendants 9, 10 and 11 resisted contending that the bequest made by Kunhikannan as per Ext.A1 was in favour of the thavazhi headed by the 12th defendant and therefore, it inured to th