J U D G M E N T

Sathish Ninan, J.

The preliminary decree in a suit for partition is under challenge by the defendants.

2. The properties sought to be partitioned, which are described in plaint 'B' to 'E' schedule, belonged to late Sivakumar. The plaintiffs are his parents, and defendants 1 and 2 are his widow and son.

3. The plaint 'B' schedule is an apartment at Thrissur. The plaint 'C' schedule is an apartment at Mumbai. Plaint 'D' schedule is a car. Plaint 'E' schedule consists of four items; item 2 is an insurance in the name of the 2nd defendant, and items 1, 3 and 4 being insurance amount and bank deposits.

4. The defendants contended that the rights of the first plaintiff over 'B' schedule was released in favour of the first defendant under Ext.B2 Release Deed. With regard to the plaint 'C' schedule it was contended that the same was alienated after discharging the Bank liability over the same, on the strength of Ext.B3 power of attorney executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the first defendant. As regards the plaint 'D' schedule it was contended that the Bank loan over the same was cleared off and it was transferred in the name of the first defendant on the strength of th