JUDGMENT

Whether an earlier decree showing the boundaries of properties set apart in a partition would bind on the parties and what would be the legal position when the excess land distributed among the sharers as per the plan drawn and annexed to the decree are the questions came up for consideration.

2. A suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession though decreed by the trial court, it was reversed by the first appellate court,against which the plaintiff came up with this appeal.

3. The subject matter of the suit is a part of large extent of property covered by a partition, Ext.A2 of the year 1965. An extent of 1 acre 92 cents was partitioned excluding the property earlier given to the mother Kalayani Amma having an extent of 48 cents and her son Madhavan Pillai which comes to 68 cents.

4. Out of the 1 acre 92 cents partitioned under Ext.A2, 71 cents was allotted to Madhavan Pillai, 32 cents to Ambujakshi Amma, 64 cents to Anandavally Amma and 25 cents to Vijayamma, the four children of Kalyani Amma. There is no dispute with respect to Ext.A2 partition, wherein there is a clause to suffer any reduction in extent or to take excess land by the parties equally. In an earli