Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. A suit for partition in which the appellants were arrayed as defendants, was decreed by the court below in favour of the plaintiff. It was found that the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to get 6/10 shares in the plaint schedule properties and that the appellants are entitled to get 4/10 shares together. By holding so, a preliminary decree has been passed which is under challenge in this appeal. The first appellant, the mother of appellants 2 to 4 died during the pendency of the appeal and appellants 2 to 4 have been recorded as legal representatives of the deceased first appellant.

2. The parties are Nambudiries. The respondent/plaintiffs father late Shri Neelakantan Nambudiri had the plaintiff as his son through the first wife. The mother of the plaintiff died before 1955. Appellant NO.1 is the second wife of deceased Neelakantan Nambudiri and appellants 2, 3 and 4 are his children through the first appellant.

3. Late Shri Neelakantan Nambudiri belonged to a Nambudiri Mana known as Thekkiniyedath Mana. The properties of the Mana were partitioned by a registered partition deed dated 27.6.1958, No.1062/1958 of the Sub Registry Office, Ottappallam. The division was among 12 members of the said illom, as 12 shares. The said document is marked in evidence as Ext.A1. At that time the plaintiff was a minor. In the partition deed B schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff as well as his father.

4. The plaintiff contended that himself and his father were having one share each in the properties allotted to them. Subsequently, the father married appellant No.1 herein and the other children were born and he died on 30.9.1998. Thus, the claim set up is that the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the plaint schedule properties and one share in the property of his father, i.e. 6 out of 10 shares.

5. The contentions raised by the appellants/defendants were mainly that even though there was a partition of the properties of the illom in the year 1958 and B schedule properties were allotted to the plaintiff and the father, separate properties were not allotted to both of them. The properties were allotted jointly to Sakha No.2 comprising of the plaintiff as well as the deceased, late Shri Neelakandan Nambudiri and it is actually their ancestral property. Therefore, the defendants are entitled to get equal shares along with the plaintiff in the whole of the properties and that plaintiff is entitled to get only 1/5 share in the plaint schedule properties.

6. The evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and Exts.A1 to A3 and B1.

7. The court below, on an interpretation of the provisions of Kerala Nambudiri Act (Act 27 of 1958) found in favour of the plaintiff. In substance, it was found that when the partition was effected in the year 1958, the plaintiff was entitled to half share in the plaint schedule properties and the remaining share stood in the name of his father. The court was of the view that a reference to the partition deed of 1958 and the B schedule properties will show that separate share was set apart to the plaintiff who was a minor and the property was managed by deceased Neelakandan Nambudiri. The court relied upon Sections 3 and 13 of the Kerala Nambudiri Act in finding that by the true effect of those two provisions a member of an illom whether male or female, will get separate share, viz. equal proprietary interest in its the properties. Even though the plaintiff was a minor, he has got his right as per Ext.A1 partition deed in the year 1958.

8. We heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants Shri S.V. Balakrishna Iyer and Shri G. Sreekumar (Chelur) learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

9. Shri S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, learned Senior Counsel, mainly contended that Nambudiries are governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law as applicable in their place of origin. Therefore, even after the partition, the illom will continue. The property will therefore remain as