K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The plaintiff is in appeal from the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The plaintiff claimed setting aside of certain documents by which properties allegedly belonging to the joint Hindu family of Udayamangalam Illom were alienated and sought for partition.

2. The plaintiff claimed that he belonged to the Illom, governed by the Aliyasantana Law and traced his descent to one Suryan Namboothiri. Suryan Namboothiri had two sons -Krishnan Namboothiri and Neelakantan Namboothiri. Neelakantan Namboothiri married outside the community. Krishnan Namboothiri married Uma Antherjanam and a son born to them was named Suryan Namboothiri (This is the Suryan Namboothiri referred to hereinafter). Suryan Namboothiri married Sreedevi Antherjanam, the 1st defendant, and two sons -Sankaranarayanan, the 2nd defendant and Suryan were born to them. Sankaranarayanan's wife Devi is the 4th defendant. Sankaranarayanan's brother Suryan died in the year 1991 and his wife Easwary is the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff is the son of defendants 2 and 4.

3. The plaint schedule property has a total extent of 1 acre and 37 cents, comprised in Survey No.79/3 (1 acre), Survey No.87/4AB (23 cents) and Survey No.87/9 (14 cents), all situated in Kothakulangara South Village. Exhibit A1 dealt with 1.37 acres, being 23 cents acquired by deed No.3156/1116 M.E., 1.00 acre by deed No.954/1113 M.E. and 14 cents by Purchase Certificate No.2757/1956. According to the plaintiff, in addition to the plaint schedule property, the Illom owned around 40 acres of land, which were lost to the Illom by the decree in O.S.No.1442 of 1106 M.E. Out of the 1.37 acres, 34 cents was sold by Exhibit A3 to one Krishnan Nair, by Suryan Namboothiri in 1984. Exhibit A3 disposes off 34.105 cents, being 5.105 cents acquired by Deed No.954/1113 M.E., 23 cents by Deed No.3073/1118 M.E. and 6 cents by Purchase Certificate No.2757/1956 issued by the Land Tribunal. The legal representatives of the said Krishnan Nair were impleaded as defendants 5 to 7. In the year 1985, by Exhibit A1 Will, Suryan Namboothiri bequeathed 1.37 Acres in favour of his wife, the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant by various documents, Exhibits A4 to A8, A11 and A12, alienated the said properties in favour of defendants 8 to 13.

4. The plaintiff contended that the said properties sold and bequeathed by Suryan Namboothiri, the plaintiff's grandfather, did not belong to his grandfather as such and belonged to the Illom. It was the specific contention that though the acquisition of the plaint schedule properties were in the name of Suryan Namboothiri, it was made possible only by the income derived from the family properties of the Illom and, hence, it inures to the benefit of the joint family and by virtue of the provisions of Joint Family System (Abolition) Act 1976, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share in the plaint schedule property along with defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiff prayed for setting aside of various documents by which defendants 5 to 13 acquired rights in the respective parcels of land and sought for partition among the members of the Illom to which the plaintiff belonged.

5. The 1st defendant appeared and filed a Written Statement, asserting her rights flowing from Exhibit A1 Will. Defendants 2 to 4 remained ex parte. Defendants 8, 12 and 13 together and defendants 10 and 11 together filed separate Written Statements. They claimed that the properties were not joint family properties and were acquired by Suryan Namboothiri in his individual capacity, which he was competent to bequeath in favour of his wife. The contesting defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 was an alleged friend and contemporary of Suryan Namboothiri. P.W.3 was the son of Neelakantan Namboothiri, the paternal uncle of Suryan Namboothiri. The 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and one Poulose was examined as D.W.2. 21 documents were marked on the s