1. Defendants 3 to 7 and legal heirs of defendant No.1 in O.S.No.477/1982 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff, Neyyattinkara are the appellants in this appeal. Appeal is filed against an order of remand passed by the lower Appellate Court by which it remanded the case for a limited purpose of considering the owelty amount due to other sharers after confirming allotment of various plots to the parties. The properties originally belonged to Seethalakshmi Amma who died as a spinster. Plaintiff and defendants were her heirs. Defendants 1 and 3 to 7 filed a joint written statement admitting most of the plaint claims. They raised a contention that item No.1 being a most valuable property may be allotted to their share. 2nd defendant filed a written statement contending that she is residing in the building situated in item No.1. It was contended that deceased had obtained a loan mortgaging item No.2. It was also contended that deceased was residing with her and the plaintiff and 1st defendant had obtained gold ornaments weighing 10 sovereigns and the value of that is to be reduced from the shares allotted to them. 2nd defendant also raised a contention that item No.1 is not partiable. It was also contended that since she is residing in item No.1 the same may be allotted to her. The only document produced is Ext.A1 partition deed dated 23.9.1959 in which the suit properties were allotted to the deceased Seethalakshmi Amma. There is no dispute regarding quantum of share. Plaintiff is entitled to get 1/4, 1st defendant is entitled to 1/4, defendants 3 to 7 together are entitled to get 1/4 and the 2nd defendant is entitled to get 1/4. Defendants 1 and 3 to 7 prayed for a joint allotment. When the matter came up for trial the 2nd defendant did not press her contention that item No.1 is not partiable. So the Trial Court held that item No. 1 was also partiable. The equities and reservations claimed were left open to be decided at the time of passing of the final decree. The Trial Court observed as follows:

“With regard to the allotment of the building and the properties therein equitable distribution will be considered at the time of the passing of the final decree. Thus equities and reservations are relegated to the stage of final decree”.

A final decree application was filed by defendants 3 to 7. A Commissioner was deputed who filed Ext.C1 report and C1 to C9 plans. In plan No.1, Commissioner divided item No.1 in A schedule into three plots. Plaintiff was given a plot having an extent of 450 sq. links. Defendants 1 and 3 to 7 were allotted a plot having an extent of 750 sq. links and 2nd defendant was allotted a plot having an extent of 450 sq. links. In that plan IJKL plot having an extent of 4 cents was allotted to the 2nd defendant. In plan No.6 the commissioner allotted item No.1 in A schedule exclusively to 2nd defendant. In plan No.8 the commissioner allotted item No.1 in A schedule exclusively to defendants 1 and 3 to 7. In plan Nos.6 and 8 also the commissioner allotted 4 cents of land comprised in re-survey No.327/3 to the 2nd defendant. Plaintiff and 2nd defendant alone filed objections to the report of the commissioner. Plaintiff contended that item No.1 in A schedule should be allotted to him exclusively. Defendants 1 and 3 to 7 contended that the plan No.8 by which item No.1 in A schedule allotted to them exclusively shall be accepted. Commissioner was examined. After enquiry Trial Court accepted plan No.6 by which item No.1 was exclusively allotted to the 2nd defendant and directed her to pay owelty to the plaintiff and other defendants. Challenging that decree and judgment defendants 3, 5 and 6 filed A.S. No.193/1996 before the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. The learned Sub Judge confirmed the finding regarding allotment of plots but held that owelty amount fixed is very low and that is to be refixed. For that purpose alone the learned Sub Judge remanded the matter to the Trial Court after confirming all other findi