This appeal is filed by respondents 3 to 6 who are the LR s of the first defendant in the suit and the first respondent in the appeal. On the death of the 3rd appellant additional appellants have been impleaded.

2. The appeal arises out of a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' share with mesne profits, past and future.

3. There are four schedules to the plaint. Besides A, B and C-Schedule, D-schedule relates to movables. The trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition as follows:

"In the result a preliminary decree for partition is passed in the following terms:-

A. Plaint A schedule, B schedule items 1 to 3 and C schedule items will be partitioned by metes and bounds and plaintiffs 1 to 17 are allotted one half share, Ist defendant 1/3 share and 2nd defendant 1/6 share in the aforesaid properties.

B. The quantum of mesne profits to which the plaintiffs are entitled will be determined in the final decree proceedings and such quantum will be a charge over the share of the plaint items allotted to the Ist defendant.

C. Plaintiffs are at liberty to apply for passing of a final decree within 3 months from this date."

4. The appeal was carried against the said preliminary decree by the plaintiffs complaining that the trial court should have held that plaint A-schedule is obtained by Karthiayani Amma Sakha as per Ext.A2 partition deed. Learned Single Judge allowed the appeal in part and a preliminary decree for partition of plaint A-schedule was passed directing division of the same into 20 shares and allotment of one share each to plaintiffs 1, 3 to 17 and Ist defendant and further directed that the share of the deceased Karthiayani Amma, Gowrikutty Amma, Ramachandran Nair and Padma Bai will devolve on their heirs as directed in para 11 of the judgment.

Para 11 of the judgment in A.S.147/1988 reads as under:

"11. After 1956 the succession will be according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Karthiayani Amma, plaintiffs 1 and 3 to 17, Ist defendant, deceased Ramachandran Nair and Gowrikutty Amma were members of the thavazhi. Thus there were 20 members in the thavazhi. Karthiayani Amma died in 1972 and her share devolved on her children Gowrikutty Amma, Ramachandran Nair and Ist defendant who were alive at that time. Ramachandran Nair died in 1973 and his 1/20 share will devolve on the 2nd plaintiff and 2nd defendant in equal moieties. Gowrikutty Amma died in 1980 and her 1/20 share will devolve on plaintiffs 1, 3, 9, 12, 13 and Padma Bai (another daughter). The 13th plaintiff died in 1986 without any heirs except plaintiffs 1, 3, 9, 12, 14 to 16 who are recorded as her legal representatives. Her share will devolve on them. Padma Bai died in 1974 and her share will devolve on plaintiffs 14 to 16. It therefore follows that in addition to the 1/20 share of the existing members, the shares of the deceased members will devolve as directed above."

This led to the filing of appeal by the LR s of the first defendant as already noted.

5. We are in this case called upon to decide the correctness of the decision in regard only to plaint A-schedule property. The parties to the suit are descendants of one Karthiayani Amma who had four children that is two daughters and two sons. Plaintiffs are the lineal descendants of Karthiayani Amma's daughter Gowrikutty Amma who died in 1980. Another daughter Lakshmi Amma died issueless. First defendant is one of her sons. Apart from the first defendant Karthiayani Amma had another son namely Ramachandran Nair who died in 1973 leaving behind the second plaintiff and the second defendant. As already noted, under the preliminary decree the court had directed division of one item of A-schedule with which we are also concerned among the children of Karthiayani Amma, that is, 1/3 share each to Gowrikutty Amma, Ramachandran Nair and first defendant. According to the plaintiffs, Karthiayani Amma had obtained the property under Ext.A2 partition deed dated 2.3.1092 (M.E)