1. Both these appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.371/90 of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode. These appeals had arisen out of the case for partition where the plaintiff contends that the first plaintiff is the son of one Damodaran and the 2nd plaintiff is the son of the first plaintiff and that the first plaintiff had been born in the wedlock of Damodaran and Chiruthakutty and that the property belongs is in ancestral nature to the joint family of the plaintiffs and defendants and therefore prays for division of the property into two equal shares and to allot one such share. The first defendant died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 2 to 5 are his legal representatives. The 2nd defendant being a member of the co-parcenery had been impleaded as the 2nd defendant even at the inception of the suit. They have contended for the position that the first plaintiff is not the son of Damodaran and Damodaran had never married Chiruthakutty and therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled to any right over the property and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

2. Various issues were raised before the trial Court. PWs.1 and 2 and DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts