Hariprasad, J.

1. This appeal is boarded before us by way of a reference. In the reference order, the learned Single Judge has observed that the ratio in Shyamalavalli Amma v. Kavalam Jisha (2007 (3) KLT 270) is irreconcilable with that in Narayani v. Aravindakshan (2005 (4) KLT 1) because the learned Single Judge, while disposing of Shyamalavalli Amma's case, did not advert to the judgment in Narayani's case. Learned Single Judge doubted the pronouncement in Shyamalavalli Amma's case, by placing reliance on the decision by the Supreme Court in Kalliani Amma v. K. Devi (1996 (2) KLT 42) too.

2. The defendants in O.S. No. 916 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur are the appellants and the plaintiffs are the respondents.

3. We shall narrate the facts, in nut shell, for a clear understanding of the disputes. The suit is one for partition. There are 32 items of immovable properties scheduled to the plaint. It is averred in the plaint that the properties belonged to Vaikkattil Krishnankutty. Until his death, he was in possession of the properties and was taking income therefrom. Krishnankutty's first wife was Valliyamma. Vaikkattil Madhavan was the son born