Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

1. Defendants 3 and 9 in the original suit are the appellants. The first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The second respondent, who is no more, is the first defendant. The third respondent is the second defendant. Respondents 4 to 8 are defendants 4 to 8 in the Original Suit. For convenience of discussion, the parties can be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Suit.

2. The suit was filed claiming partition and separate possession of 1/9th share in the plaint schedule properties, consisting of a house and compound owned by one Gangadharan, the husband of the first defendant. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 8 are the children of the said Gangadharan and the first defendant. In the year 1941, Gangadharan executed a gift deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the first defendant - his wife as well as defendants two and three – the only born children at that time. The plaintiff alleged in the suit that the said gift enures to the benefit of all the subsequent born children, i.e. defendants 4 to 8 and the plaintiff also. Therefore, he claimed 1/9th share in the plaint schedule properties.

3. The first defendant who is the wife of Gangadharan remained ex parte. However, she expired during the pendency of the suit.

4. The second defendant who is one of the donees under the gift deed also remained ex parte. The third defendant who is the first appellant herein resisted the suit and maintained the stand that the donor clearly intended an absolute gift to the donees made mention of in the gift deed and, therefore, the property is not partible, as claimed.

5. Defendants 4,6 and 8 in a joint written statement supported the plaintiff's claim and the seventh defendant also supported the plaintiff through a separate written statement. The ninth defendant (second appellant) who is the wife of the third defendant being an assignee of the share of the third defendant supported the case of the third defendant.

6. At the trial, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Therefore, the evidence consists of Exts.A1 to A11 and B1 to B5 and C1 to C3 only.

7. As the main issue was confined to the interpretation of the Gift Deed which was marked as Ext.A2(B1), the trial court considered the same as issue Nos.1 and 2. The trial court held that the statutory support available to a marumakkathayee under Section 48 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932 is available to the plaintiff and based on the said finding it was held that Ext.A2 gift is to a Natural Thavazhi as contemplated in the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932. On this line of reasoning, the trial court held that the plaintiff is also a co-owner and hence entitled to 1/9th share in the plaint schedule property. It is this finding which is put to challenge before this Court in this appeal.

8. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents quite in extenso. We have also perused the impugned judgment and other lower court records.

9. The execution of Ext.A2 gift deed is admitted. Going by the undisputed pleadings, the parties are makkathayees (See paragraph 3 in the plaint). The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant relied on a recital in Ext.A2 gift deed and argued that it operates to the benefit of defendants 1, 2 and 3 only and they are the sole beneficiaries under Ext.A2. The said recital reads as follows:

"MALAYALAM”

10. As per the aforesaid recital Ext.A2 is only a gift to the person named therein, so submitted the learned senior counsel for the appellant.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent per contra relied on another recital in the latter part of Ext.A2 gift deed where the donor has expressed a desire that his future born children through the first defendant also may enjoy the property. The relevant portion reads as follows:

"MALAYALAM”

12. The defence of the appellants is that by operation of the first p