JUDGMENT

The plaintiff after suffering two decrees both in trial court and in first appellate court came up with this appeal in a suit for partition. The plaintiff claims that the plaint schedule property – Item Nos.1 to 6 are belonged to the family of plaintiff, governed by Mitakshara law, as such it is a co-parcenary property and the plaintiff is entitled to have a share over the property along with his father. The suit was filed by the mother of minor plaintiff in a representative capacity. Admittedly, the property is a subject matter of 1949 partition in which the said property was allotted to the share of Narayanan, the grandfather of the plaintiff. After his demise in the year 1982, the five sons of Narayanan inclusive of the first defendant, the father of plaintiff herein, entered into Ext.A1 partition by which the properties were divided among them and item Nos.1 to 6 were allotted to the share of first defendant, Krishna Swamy. During his lifetime he had sold several portions of property under Ext.B1 of the year 1982, B4 of the year 1981, B5 of the year 1990 and B6 of the year 1983. Both the courts below dismissed the suit against which the plaintiff came up with this appe