A suit for partition requires clear title ownership, lacking which the claim cannot stand.

1. Defendants 2 to 7, 9 to 11, 13, 16 to 20 and 23 to 26 in O.S. No. 1083/93 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur, are the appellants. The original suit was filed for the grant of partition claiming 1/9th share over the property by the sole plaintiff. The case advanced by the plaintiff is that she is one of the daughter of late Ouseph who passed away on 21.03.1957. During the life time of Ouseph, he obtained approximately 38 acres of property under Exhibit A1 verumbattam lease of the year 1100 ME from its title holder, a family by name Thottan family and he was enjoying the property based on Exhibit A1 lease. There are provision in the said document for paying the premium. The document is named as a verumbattam lease. After the death of Ouseph, according to the plaintiff, the property devolved upon equally on his children and as such she is entitled to 1/9th share over the property. It was also inter alia contended by the plaintiff that the property was in the joint possession and enjoyment of both the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendant No.1, 15, 21, 22 and 29 and Late Chacku, Late Lonappan and Porinchu are her siblings. Defendant No.22 passed away during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were impleaded as Defendant Nos. 24 to 26. Defendant Nos. 2 to 8 are the legal heirs of Late Chacku, defendant Nos. 9 to 14 are the legal heirs of Lonappan and defendant Nos.16 to 20 are the legal heirs of Late Porinchu.

2. The lower court, on consideration of pleading and evidence and on hearing both the parties, decreed the suit by passing a preliminary decree granting 1/9th share over the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff by its decree and judgment dated 19.03.2002, against which this appeal preferred.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff claiming herself as the daughter of Ouseph, who obtained 38 acres of property including the plaint schedule property under Exhibit A1 verumbattam lease of the year 1100 ME from Thottan family. There is no much dispute with respect to the title of the property with the family by name Thottan family at the time of execution of Exhibit A1 verumbattam lease in favour of the father of the plaintiff herein, Ouseph. It was also not in dispute that the Ouseph was enjoying the property and holding the leasehold right till his death. After the death of Ouseph, the five male children of deceased Ouseph obtained Exhibits B1 to B5 documents in the year 1969 from the Thottan family, the title holder. It is further alleged by the defendants that during the life time of father, the property was subjected to an oral partition and different portions of large extent of property was given to the possession of the male children of Ouseph and as such they were holding separate portions of property and enjoying the same at the time of death of Ouseph. Pursuant to the above said possession, after the death of father, they approached the title holder family and purchased their entire right under Exhibits B1 to B5 documents. So the claim of plaintiff was disputed on the basis of Exhibits B1 to B5 deeds.

5. Going by Exhibits B1 to B5 documents, it is clear that its nomenclature is stated as assignment of lease (verumbatta theeradharam). But, going by the content it is clear that the title holder family has released their entire right, title and interest over the property in favour of the beneficiaries under Exhibits B1 to B5 documents, namely the male children of deceased Ouseph with respect to portions of property covered by those documents on receiving