JUDGMENT

This appeal raises a peculiar question. In a preliminary decree for partition, the 7^th respondent herein was allotted 1/4^th share in the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 94 of 1998 of Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. Pending the issuance of final decree, it appears that the property was acquired by the Government. There was a clamour for receipt of compensation among the sharers. Subsequently, the 7^th respondent in the final decree proceedings and the 2^nd defendant in the suit, who is the mother of the 2^nd appellant sold the property to the 1^st appellant herein. The 1^st appellant sought to implead himself in FDA No. 1598 of 2008 and was impleaded as the 17th respondent. The 17th respondent raised a plea that the shares liable to be allotted in favour of the 2^nd defendant in the suit who was impleaded as the 7^th respondent in the final decree proceedings be assigned in his favour. Other c