A suit for partition ended in a decree in the Trial

Court, but in appeal it was reversed. Aggrieved by the said

decree and judgment, the plaintiffs came up with this

appeal.

2. The property involved in the suit originally

belonged to Thazhakkat Mana. There are two items jointly

held by Koran and Chemmarathi and others. Chemmarathi and

others assigned a right in favour of Cheriya Koran and

Kunhappu. Thereafter Koran and Cheriya Koran conveyed a

leasehold right to Kunhathi and Mathi under Ext.A1 of the

year 1125 ME, more specifically on 09.05.1925. Plaintiffs

are the legal heirs of Kunhathi. Mathi and Kunhappu died.

Their legal heirs were respectively impleaded as D1 to D5,

D6 to D8, D12 and D13 in the suit. The ninth defendant in

this suit is the daughter of original lessee Koran. She

had obtained jenm right over the property under Exts.B1 and

B2, dated 06.09.1954 and 25.07.1963 respectively from

Thazhakkat Mana. Hence, the suit for partition.

7

3. The question came up for consideration in this

appeal is whether it is permissible for the First Appellate

Court to admit, accept and to act upon additional evidence

brought under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC wi