1. This appeal is filed by the 1st defendant. He challenges the preliminary decree passed by the trial court. In was confirmed in appeal. Plaintiffs five in number sought partition of the plaint schedule property into 23 equal shares and to allot to them five such shares. Ext.A1 is the gift deed executed by the original owners in favour of Narayani. Ext.A1 is clear, cogent and convincing that it was executed not only to Narayani but also to her descendents. There is a further stipulation that the property should be enjoyed as a Thavazhy property. That document was executed on 29.4.1935. Hence, there can be no doubt that the property was a Thavazhy property.

2. From the evidence on record it is found that as on 1.12.1976, when Kerala Act 30 of 1976 came into force, there were 23 members in that Thavazhy and so those 23 members are to be treated as co-owners and so each of them is entitled to get 1/23 share.

3. The main contention raised by the appellant herein (1st defendant in the suit) is that when this property was proceeded against by the Bank, for realisation of the amount due to the Bank, the decree amount therein with cost, interest etc was paid by the appellant her