K. Harilal, J.

The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.148 of 1985 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi, and the appellants in A.S. No.55 of 1995 on the files of the Sub Court, Tirur, which was filed challenging the judgment and decree, dismissing O.S. No.148 of 1985.

2. The aforesaid Original Suit was one for partition. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint 'B' schedule property belonged to 'Menath Karunakaran Nair', the father of the 1st plaintiff and the defendants and husband of the 2nd plaintiff. The said 'Karunakaran Nair' died in the year 1974 and his legal heirs are the plaintiffs and the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, 'Karunakaran Nair' married 2nd plaintiff in accordance with the customs and law and the 1st plaintiff was born in the said wedlock. Thereafter, 'Karunakaran Nair' cohabited with 'Punathil Devi' and the defendants were born to them. The said 'Devi' was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased 'Karunakaran Nair'. Thus, the 1st plaintiff and the defendants alone are the legal heirs of the deceased 'Karunakaran Nair'. Hence, the property has to be divided into five shares and each of them are entitled to get one share each. The plaintiffs and the defendants are in joint possession of the property. When the plaintiffs demanded partition of the said property, the defendants refused the same. Hence, the suit was filed claiming ? share in the plaint 'B' schedule property.

3. In the written statement, the defendants contended that 'Karunakaran Nair' was neither the father of the 1st plaintiff nor the husband of the 2nd plaintiff. The said 'Karunakaran Nair' did not marry the 2nd plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff is not the daughter of the deceased 'Karunakaran Nair'. 'Karunakaran Nair' died on 16.04.1972 and not in the year 1974, as averred in the plaint. Thus, the legal heirs of the deceased 'Karunakaran Nair' are the defendants and their mother only and the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of 'Karunakaran Nair'. So, they are not entitled to get any share in the plaint 'B' schedule property. According to the defendants, plaint 'B' schedule property is in the exclusive possession of the defendants alone for the last 12 years. Since the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any share, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence in abundance consisting of the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 6 and D.Ws.1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A9, B1 to B7. After evaluating the evidence, on record, the trial court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the 1st plaintiff is the daughter of 'Karunakaran Nair' or the 2nd plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of 'Karunakaran Nair'. In Appeal, the appellate court also concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the concurrent findings of the trial court that the 1st plaintiff is not the daughter of 'Karunakaran Nair' and the 2nd plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of said 'Karunakaran Nair', are under challenge in this Regular Second Appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the courts below have miserably failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its correct perspective. More specifically, it is contended that the courts below have not considered Exts.B1 to B7 in its correct perspective and according to the learned counsel, it is well inferable from Ext.B1 to B7 that the deceased 'Karunakaran Nair' is the father of the 1st plaintiff and the husband of the 2nd plaintiff.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the courts below have appreciated the evidence, on record, in its correct perspective. The learned counsel further submits that neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence proved the existence of a valid marriage between the 2n