Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This appeal is against a preliminary decree for partition. Defendants 8 to 12, who are also the heirs of the first defendant, deceased pending suit, are the appellants. The parties are Christians.

2. David Tharakan died intestate in 1934 leaving behind, his wife Martha; son, the first defendant and two daughters; the plaintiff and Lucy Abraham. Defendants 2 to 7 are the legal representatives of Lucy Abraham. Plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein, died pending this appeal. Her legal representative is impleaded as additional 8th respondent.

3. David Tharakan had properties within the territorial limits of the then princely States of Travancore and Cochin. Before the Indian Succession Act, 1925, became applicable with effect from 1.4.1951, consequent on the coming into force of the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 (3 of 1951), succession to the Cochin properties was governed by Cochin Christian Succession Act, 1097, for short, the “Cochin Act”, while succession to the Travancore properties was governed by the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092. There is no controversy that the law of succession that applies is so.

4. Plaintiff had received Rs.20,000/- as sthreedhanam in 1951, for which she executed Ext.B1 receipt in 1953. Late Lucy Abraham, politely, for brevity, called hereinafter, “Lucy”, had earlier filed O.S.No.137 of 1976 seeking partition of the estate of her late father. Plaintiff herein was a defendant in that suit. On the strength of her power of attorney, her mother Martha filed Ext.B10 written statement in that suit, along with the other defendants; all of them contesting the plaint claim. These facts are admitted.

5. Following the demise of Martha, the mother, the plaintiff sued for partition of the Cochin properties on the premise that the receipt of sthreedhanam disentitled her to claim any share in the Travancore properties. The suit was laid, claiming share as the heir of David Tharakan and also as the heir of Martha. Contemporaneous with the suit, the first defendant propounded the Will of Martha. The plaintiff contested that Will in testamentary jurisdiction before this Court. On the Will of Martha being upheld by this Court, plaintiff conceded to that situation and gave up her claim for partition of Martha's estate. Thus the plaint claim is for partition of the Cochin properties left behind by David Tharakan, less what his widow Martha got out of that estate.

6. Lucy's heirs did not file written statement, either contesting the suit or making any claim for share.

7. Defendants 1, and 8 to 12, who are also the legal representatives of David Tharakan, contested.

8. The first defendant contended that the plaintiff having received sthreedhanam in 1951, she could not claim any share in view of Section 22 of the Cochin Act. His further plea was that the plaintiff along with him, their mother and other defendants filed Ext.B10 written statement in O.S.No.137 of 1976 filed by Lucy, clearly stating that neither Lucy nor the plaintiff herein had any right to claim any share in the properties of their late father and that the first defendant herein and his mother are alone entitled to those properties. It is the first defendant's case that in terms of Ext.B10, nothing survives and the plaintiff had given up her claim for any share in the property and that the continued conduct of the parties clearly shows that the plaintiff had never been in possession and the first defendant was in exclusive possession and that the plaintiff does not continue to have any right to partition, having regard to the fact that the first defendant has perfected title and the plea for partition is barred by limitation.

9. Exhibits A1 to A9 and B1 to B15 were marked. The plaintiff and the eighth defendant deposed as PW1 and DW1 respectively. The court below held that her father having died prior to her marriage and receipt of sthreedhanam, Section 22 of the Cochin Act did not deprive th