JUDGMENT

Both these appeals are arise out of O.S.No.176/1985 before the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad.

2. The suit was one for partition. S.A.No.625/1996 is filed by the plaintiff in the suit and S.A.No.730/1996 is filed by the third and fourth defendants in the suit. During the pendency of the suit the first defendant died and her legal heirs were impleaded in the trial court as Supplemental defendants 3 and 4.

3. Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Pazhaniyandi. On his death, the property devolved upon the only son Appu and then on his death, on the plaintiff, the first defendant and the second defendant. According to the plaintiff in the suit, item Nos. 2 to 4 of plaint A schedule were purchased by the first defendant in his name and in the name of his wife with the profits derived from Item No.1 of plaint schedule and selling the trees in Item No.1 of A schedule.

Claiming 1/3 share over the suit properties, the suit was laid.

4. First defendant resisted the suit by pointing out the death of Appu, the father of plaintiff and defendants was before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act and so, the devolution of the interest over the properties and mode