The plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant.

The plaint relates to A and B schedule properties. The

issue involved in the appeal is confined to plaint A

schedule property.

2.

That the property sought to be partitioned

originally belonged to Devasi, the predecessor-in-interest

of the parties, is not in dispute. Devasi had married

twice, the second marriage being contracted on the

death of the first wife. Between the legal heirs of Devasi,

there was a partition in the year 1953 as Partition Deed

No.1034/1953, which is marked as Ext.A4. Therein,

partition was effected into two, one share to the heirs

under the first marriage and the other share with

different properties to the heirs under the second

marriage. The present suit for partition relates only to

properties so allotted to the branch under the second

wife, Kochumariyam.

3.

The only question that arises for determination

in this appeal is as to whether under Ext.A4 partition,

4

Kochumariyam became a sharer or was she a signatory

therein only as representing her minor children, in her

capacity as guardian. The relevant recital in Ext.A4 reads

thus:

"ടടി ദദേവസടിയയുടട മക്കൾ കകൃഷടി ഇരയുപതടിരണയു