Heard. Admit.

2. The following substantial questions of law are framed:

(i) Could a person who is neither the executant of the deed nor bound under any circumstance by the executant request to deliver up and cancel the deed?

(ii) Were the courts below justified in overlooking the fact that even as per the admitted partition deed, appellant is entitled to get more than 9 cents and also 2/3rd of the excess land?

3. Respondents 1 and 2 appear through counsel.

4. Since I have perused a copy of Ext.A1, partition deed No.1122 of 1959 dated 07.04.1959 based on which parties hereto claim right, title, interest and possession, in view of the substantial questions framed for a decision and as agreed by the learned counsel on both sides, it is not necessary to call for entire records of the case.

5. According to the appellant/plaintiff, plaint A schedule belongs to her exclusively as per Ext.A1, partition deed. Plaint B schedule was allotted to her sister, the late Lakshmikutty Amma in the said partition. The 3rd respondent is the sole legal heir of the said Lakshmikutty Amma. The 2nd respondent is the son of appellant. 1st respondent is the wife of 2nd respondent. Appellant clai