J U D G M E N T

The suit for partition was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiffs are in appeal.

2. One Lakshmikutty @ Malu Amma is the common ancestress of the parties. The plaintiffs and defendants are, the children or grand children or great grant children of Lakshmikutty. For the sake of convenience the genealogical tree, as given in the A schedule to the plaint is extracted hereunder :-

3. Plaint 'B' schedule consists of five items of immovable properties. They are sought to be partitioned. The plaint 'B' schedule items are claimed to be the thavazhi properties of Lakshmikutty. The contesting defendants dispute the same. They claim that the properties are the separate properties of Lakshmikutty.

4. The trial court held that the properties are the separate properties of Lakshmikutty and accordingly dismissed the suit.

5. I have heard learned counsel Sri.P.A.Harish on behalf of the appellant and Sri.N.M.Madhu on behalf of the contesting respondents.

6. The point that arises for determination is :-

“Is the finding of the trial court that the properties sought to be partitioned are the separate properties of Lakshmikutty, sustainable on the evidence?”

7. For the sake of convenience