The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of tavazhi properties and the burden of proof in establishing ownership and acquisition, while also considering the validity of claims and the evidence presented.

Varghese Kalliath, J.

1. A. S. No. 66 of 1978 is an appeal filed by plaintiffs 1 to 8 challenging the judgment in O.S. No. 40 of 197A. S. No. 74 of 1978 is an appeal by the 33rd defendant against the same judgment. In A. S. No. 66/78 defendants 2 to 9 and defendants 27 to 32 have filed cross objections.

2. O.S. No. 40 of 1972 is a suit for partition of 9 items of properties scheduled in schedule B of the plaint. The plaint reveals:-

Plaintiffs and the first defendant are members of a marumakkathayam tavazhi. The tavazhi is known as the tavazhi of Urumi. One Urumi Thirumal had six children by name Kunhikannan, Chathukutty, Ambu, Ramunni, Devi and Govindan. Kunhikannan was the eldest son of Urumi Thirumal. Three members of the tavazhi, namely, Kunhikannan, Ambu and Ramunni died subsequent to the Hindu Succession Act. Defendants 2 to 9 are the children of Kunhikannan. Defendants 10 to 13 are the heirs of Ambu, Defendants 14 to 19 are the children of Ramunni. Defendant No. 1 and plaintiffs 1 to 8 are the heirs of Devi. It seems that Govindan died issueless. In the plaint it is alleged that the properties described in the plaint B schedule belong to the tavazhi and the same is now managed by the first defendant who is the karanavan of the tavazhi. Plaintiffs demanded partition but the first defendant did not agree. Plaintiffs claimed that they are entitled to 8/12 shares in the plaint schedule properties. They claim past and future profits also.

3. Defendants 20 to 25 were subsequently impleaded since they claimed possession of a portion of item No. Defendant No. 33 was impleaded as per the contentions raised in the written statement of defendants 2 to Defendants 27 to 32 claimed tenancy right over item No. 7 on the basis of an assignment deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the 26th defendant.

4. The first defendant admitted in his written statement that the properties are tavazhi properties. He only claimed tenancy rights over item No. He claimed tenancy rights by virtue of a lease granted by a karanavan of the tavazhi, namely Chathukutty on 3rd April 196He con- tended that the lease was granted by the karanavan with the consent of the members of the family. There was tavazhi necessity to grant such a lease since a decree amount holding on the tavazhi had to be discharged and the same was discharged by the karanavan with the amount paid by the first defendant as consideration for the lease. He stated that he has subsequently assigned the tenancy right to 26th defendant. Defendants 26 to 32 were impleaded on the basis of the written statement of the first defendant. Further he contended that items 1 to 6 are in the possession of defendants 14 to 19 and items 3, 4 and 5 are in the possession of defendants 2 to He claimed possession in respect of item No. 9 alone. It is stated in his written statement that item No. 9 is a burial ground. He claimed his share separately. He also put forward a claim for the movables in the house.

5. Defendants 2 to 9 filed a joint written statement. They contended that there is only one item belonging to the tavazhi. It is item No. In the written statement they have given the details of the acquisition of the properties. They claimed that items 1, 2 and 7 are co-ownership properties insofar as these properties were gifted to Thirumal and her children, by one Darmada Kannan who was the father of Thirumal. In respect of item No. 3 they claimed title by virtue of an assignment deed in favour of Thirumal and her children. Items 4 and 5 according to defendants 2 to 9 were purchased by their father Kunbikannan with his own funds. Defendants 2 to 9 claimed item No. 8 under an oral Will of one Valappil Kunhiraman. In regard to item No. 9 they claimed a lease in favour of Kunhikannan from the tarwad and that he was in possession of the same as a tenant. It was further contended that Kunhikannan, Ambu, Ramunni and Devi got the rights in items 1 to 3 and They admitted that plaintiffs 1 to 4 and