IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 AS.No. 56 of 1993(C) -------------------- OS.45/1988 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS: -------------- 1. V.P. SALGUNA, D/O. AMBUJAKSHI, PERUMKULANGARA, MANNUR AMSOM DESOM, MANNUR P.O., PALGHAT DISTRICT. (*DIED. LRs RECORDED) 2. P.V. PRAMEELA, D/O. SALGUNA, RESIDING DO. 3. P.V. PRASANTHA, D/O. SALGUNA, RESIDING DO. 4. P.V. PRADEEP, S/O. SALGUNA, RESIDING DO. (* APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 ARE RECORDED AS THE LRs OF THE DECEASED FIRSTAPPELLANT VIDE ORDER DT. 20.7.04 ON MEMO CF 12612/04) 5. SHYLAJA, ALIKKAL VEEDU, D/O. AMBUJAKSHI, PALAPPURAM P.O., OTTAPALAM. 6. HANSAKUMARI, D/O. AMBUJAKSHI, NHARAPPADATH VEEDU, PALAPPURAM P.O. 7. RAMADAS, S/O. SHYLAJA, ALIKKAL VEEDU, PALAPPURAM., 8. RAMESHAN, ALIKKAL VEEDU, PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM. 9. SANTHOSH KUMAR, RESIDING DO. 10. SREELATHA, RESIDING DO. BY ADV. MR. T.A.RAMADASAN MR. A.K. ALEX (...2/-) A.S.56 & 285/93 (2) RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: --------------- 1. MANIKOTH POOVADAN NARAYANAN, S/O. CHEERU, KALLAYI AMSOM, VAYALAM DESOM (DIED) 2. MANIKOTH POOVADAN SREEDEVI, RESIDING DO. (*DIED) 3. M.P. VIJAYA SARASWATHI, D/O. SREEDEVI, H.NO.208, 9TH STREET, ANNA NAGAR, WEST MADRAS. 4. M.P. JAYASREE D/O. SREEDEVI, KALLAYI AMSOM, VAYALAM DESOM, TEMPLE GATE, THALASSERY.2. 5. M.P. RAMANATHAN, S/O. SREEDEVI, ENGINEER, MAZIM ENGINEERING LTD. P.B. NO.3259, KEJA LAGOS, NIJERIA. 6. M.P. RAMANI, D/O. SREEDEVI, POOVADAN HOUSE, TEMPLE GATE P.O., THALASSERY. (* R3 TO 6 ARE RECORDED AS LRs OF DECEASED R2 VIDE ORDER DT.3.1.02 ON MEMO DATED 21.12.01 CF.13183/01) 7. ANUPAMA (MINOR) AGED 15 YEARS, 3RD DEFENDANT'S DAUGHTER. 8. BROTHER ANAND (MINOR) 13 YEARS, D/O. 3RD DEFENDANT. 9. M.P. KOMALAVALLI, D/O. SARADA, PUTHIYANDIYIL VEEDU, MADAPEEDIKA, THALASSERY.(*DIED. LRs RECORDED) 10. M.P. ANANDAVALLI, D/O. SARADA, MADRAS STREET, VEPERI P.O. CHOOLAIM. 11. M.P. USHA, D/O. SARADA, PUTHIYANDIYIL VEEDU, MADAPEEDIKA, P.O. THALASSERY. 12. M.P. SULOCHANA, D/O. SARADA, RESIDING DO. 13. M.P. PUSHPA, D/O. SARADA, 'SREENIVAS', THALASSERY AMSOM, MANNAYAD DESOM, THALASSERY. (* R10 TO 13 WHO ARE ALREADY IN THE PARTY ARRAY ARE RECORDED AS THE LRs OF THE DECEASED R9 VIDE ORDER DT.20.7.04 ON MEMO CF.12616/04) (...3/) A.S.56 & 285/93 (3) 14. SANGEETHA, D/O. 10TH DEFENDANT, ANANDAVALLI, (MINOR 17 YEARS) 15. SISTER SWAPNA (MINOR 15 YEARS) D/O. 10TH DEFENDANT,ANANDAVALLI 16. SREEVIJAYA (MINOR 14 YEARS) D/O. 13TH DEFENDANT PUSHPA. 17. SREEVIDYA (MINOR 13 YEARS) D/O. 13TH DEFENDANT PUSHPA. 18. P.K. RATHNAMMA, D/O. LAKSHMI, 'SATHYAPRABHA', P.O. PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM.(* DIED. LR IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R35) 19. P.K. PREMANANDAN, D/O. LAKSHMI, “AMBADI”, P.O. KUYYAKUNNU, KANNUR. 20. B.S. SREENIVAS, S/O. SARASWATHI, VICTOR FRANK, RIYALTREE 2 FIN LAYAS GREEN 41202, SINGAPUR 0104.(DIED) 21. B.S. ANASOOYA, D/O. SARASWATHI, VIPINVILLA, NEAR KOTTARAM, EAST NADAKAVU, KOZHIKODE-6. (* DIED. LRs RECORDED) 22. PRASANNA, D/O. SARASWATHI, W/O. SREENIVAS, RESIDING AT ST. MARY'S ROAD, MADRAS-18. 23. BHEESHMARAJ, S/O. ANASOOYA, VIPIN VILLA, NEAR KOTTARAM EAST NADAKAVU, KOZHIKODE-6. 24. VINAYARAJ, S/O. ANASOOYA, DO. (* IT IS RECORDED THAT R21 DIED AND R23 AND R24 ARE ALREADY IN THE PARTY ARRAY ARE HER LRs VIDE ORDER DT. 31.3.09 ON MEMO DT.21.3.09 CF.1839/09) 25. ARJUNAN, S/O. PRASANNA, 179 ST. MARY'S ROAD, MADRAS-13. 26. AJITHA, D/O. PRASANNA, RESIDING AT 179 ST.MARY'S ROAD, MADRAS. 27. SWARNARANI, D/O. YESODHA, 23 SREENILAYAM, PLOT 182, GARODIYA NAGAR, CHATKOPER, BOMBAY. 28. CHANDRAMOHANAN, S/O. YESODHA, POST BOD. NO.2978, DAMMAM. K.S.B. (...4/) A.S.56 & 285/93 (4) 29. SURESHKUMAR, S/O. YESODHA, 23, SREENILAYAM, PLOT 182, GARODIYA NAGAR, GHATKOPER, EAST BOMBAY. 30. ANILCHAND, S/O. SWARNARANI, 23 SREENILAYAM, DO. 31. AJESHKUMAR (MINOR 16 YEARS) S/O. SWARNARANI, DO. 32. V. JAYASEELAN, S/O. AMBUJAKSHI, NO.97, 2ND STREET, KAMARAJNAGAR, ETHOOR, MADRAS-56. 33. MEENAKSHI SUMATHY, D/O. SUMATHY, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, PAVAL P.O., THALASSERY. 34. P.R. NALINI, POOVADAN HOUSE, EDATHALA P.O., TEMPLE GATE, THALASSERY. (* DIED. R3 TO 6 WHO ARE ALREADY IN THE PARTY ARRAY ARE RECORDED AS THE LRs OF THE DECEASED R34 VIDE ORDER DT. 9.9.04 ON MEMO CF.15364/04)) 35. M.A. CHANDRASEKHARAN, HUSBAND OF P.K. RETNAMMA (DIED) MANJU NIVAS, PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM-679 103. (* IMPLEADED AS THE LR OF DECEASED R18 VIDE ORDER DT.30.6.04 ON C.M.P.4338/96) ADV. MR. P.V. NARYANAN NAMBIAR M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R2,R4,R6 MR. K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN FOR R21 TO 26 MR. GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R9 TO R17 MS.VANAJA MADHAVAN FOR R18 MR. K.V.SOHAN FOR R2,4 & 6 THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2009, ALONG WITH AS NO. 285 OF 1993 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------------- A.S. No.56 OF 1993 AND A.S. No.285 OF 1993 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The plaintiffs in O.S.45 of 1988 on the file of Sub Court, Thalassery are the appellants in A.S.56 of 1993. Along with the plaintiffs, defendants 33 to 38 have also joined as appellants. Defendants 2 to 4 and 6 to 8 in the same suit are the appellants in A.S.285 of 1993. Respondents in A.S.56 of 1993 are the other defendants. In addition to the other defendants, plaintiffs are also shown as respondents in A.S.285 of 1993. In A.S.56 of 1993 on the death of the first appellant, appellants 2 to 4 are recorded as her legal heirs. On the death of second respondent, respondents 3 to 6 are recorded as his legal heirs. On the death of eighteenth respondent, respondent No.35 is recorded as the legal heir. On the death of ninth respondent, respondents 10 to 13 are recorded as the legal heirs. On the death of respondent No.34, respondents 3 to 6 are recorded as the legal heirs. Similarly on the death of respondent No.21, A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 2 respondents 23 and 24 are recorded as the legal heirs. Similarly the legal heirs of the deceased first appellant and the other respondents were impleaded and recorded in A.S.285 of 1993 also. 2. Appellants 1 to 4 in A.S.56 of 1993 instituted the suit seeking partition and separation of their shares. As per the preliminary decree dated 26.6.1992, learned Sub Judge found that item No.2 to 5 of plaint B schedule properties are available for partition and they are to be divided into 48 shares and appellants 1 to 4 are entitled to four such shares and the shares due to defendants 2 to 8, 9, 17, 13, 35, 34, 37 and 38 are to be allotted as separate groups and cost of the suit shall come out of the estate. A.S.56 of 1993 is filed by the plaintiffs along with defendants 33 to 38, challenging the preliminary decree disallowing partition of item No.1 and 6 to 8 of plaint B schedule properties. A.S.285 of 1993 was filed by defendants 2 to 4 and 6 to 8 challenging the preliminary decree, finding that item No.1 and 6 to 8 are not available for partition. 3. Plaint A schedule property is the genealogy. There was no dispute between the parties on the genealogy or the A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 3 shares due to the parties. The only question in the appeals is whether item No.1 and 6 to 8 are available for partition or not. Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property was excluded from partition upholding the claim raised by defendants 21 to 26. Item No.6 to 8 were excluded accepting the contentions of defendants 18 and 19. It is admitted case that both item Nos. 1 and 6 to 8 of plaint B schedule property originally belonged to Cheeru and her children under Ext.A1 Will executed by her husband Chathu. The children of Cheeru are Sarada, Kousalya, Lakshmi, Sumathi, Saraswathi, Yesodha, Ambujakshi and defendatns1 and 2. Defendants 9 to 13 are the children of Sarada. Defendants 14 and 15 are the children of 10th defendant and defendants 16 and 17 are the children of the defendant No.13. Defendants 18 and 19 are the children of Lakshmi. Kousalya died issueless. Defendant No.39 is the widow of Cheeru's deceased son, Sumathi. Defendants 20 to 22 are the children of Saraswathi. Defendants 23 and 24 are the children of defendant No.21 and defendants 25 and 26 are the children of defendant No.22. Defendants 27 to 29 are the children of Yesodha and defendants 30 and 31 are the children of defendant A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 4 No.27. Admittedly Ambujakshi died prior to 1956 and first plaintiff, defendants 32, 33, and 34 are her children. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of the first plaintiff. Defendants 35 and 36 are the children of defendant No.33. Defendants 37 and 38 are the children of defendant No.34. Defendants 3 to 6 are the children of the second defendant. On this aspect there is no doubt. 4. Item No.1 of the plaint B schedule property was exclusively claimed by the defendants 21 and 22 and their children 23 to 26. Defendant No.20 is the brother of defendants 21 and 22 and all of them are the descendants of Saraswathi. In the joint written statement of defendants 21, 23 and 24 the mother and the children, item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is claimed by them, in paragraph 4, contending that the property is not available for partition as it was obtained by Saraswathi and her children defendants 20 to 22 and defendants 23 and 24 under Ext.B1 gift deed 635/1939 and since then they have been in possession of the property and while so under Ext.B2 registered partition deed of 1983, the properties were divided and the respective sharers are in possession of the A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 5 property and even if any other members of the tarwad have any right it is lost by ouster and adverse possession and therefore item No.1 cannot be divided. It is contended that the other items of plaint B schedule property are available for partition and shares of defendants 21 to 23 and 24 are to be separately allotted. Defendants. 22 and 26 in their joint written statement also contended that item No.1 of the plaint B schedule property is not available for partition. What was contended in paragraph 3 of the written statement was that item No.1 of the plaint B schedule property is not available for partition, as it is in the possession and enjoyment of the said defendants under Ext.B1 gift deed. It was also contended that the said property was mortgaged by some of the members of the tarwad in 1933 and in 1936 Balakrishnan the father of defendants 20 to 22 redeemed the mortgage in his individual capacity and that redemption was not for the benefit of the tarwad and since then the property has been in the possession of Balakrishnan and under Ext.B1 gift deed dated 30.3.1939 it was gifted in favour of the donees, the defendants 20 to 26 and hence the property cannot be divided. It was also contended that the said property has been in the A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 6 exclusive possession ever since from 1936 and therefore the right if any is lost by adverse possession and limitation. The learned Sub Judge found that item No.1 of plaint B schedule property is not available for partition finding that husband of the defendant No.22 was examined as DW2 and from his evidence it is evident that item No.1 of the plaint B schedule property was obtained by his wife under Ext.B2 partition deed and defendant No.22 obtained 27 cents and Ext.B3 purchase certificate was also obtained and she paid the basic tax evidenced by Ext.B4 series and there was no valid evidence on record to challenge Ext.B1 to B4 and therefore item No.1 of the plaint B schedule property is not available for partition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the supporting defendants argued that learned Sub Judge did not appreciate Ext.B1 and Ext.B1 only show that Balakrishnan, the donor therein, obtained a simple mortgage right over item No.1 of the plaint B schedule property and thereafter under Ext.B1 the mortgage right was gifted to his wife and children to enable them to realize the mortgage money and therefore item No.1 of plaint B schedule property should not have been excluded from A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 7 partition. It was argued that except Ext.B1, there is no evidence to prove that either Balakrishnan or defendants 20 to 26 were in exclusive possession of the properties and that too adverse to the other members of the tarward and therefore the trial court should have granted a decree for partition of item No.1 of plaint B schedule property also. 6. Learned counsel appearing for defendants 21 to 24 and 26 argued that as rightly found by the trial court Ext.B1 establishes that from 1939 onwards Balakrishnan and thereafter his wife and children were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of item No.1 of plaint B schedule property and in 1983 under Ext.B2 the said property was divided in between defendants 20 to 26 and even purchase certificate was obtained from the Land Tribunal in suo moto proceedings and therefore item No.1 was rightly excluded from partition. Learned counsel argued that even if there is any doubt with regard to the right claimed by defendants 21 to 26, and the evidence adduced are not sufficient, an opportunity is to be granted to prove that they have been in exclusive possession of property from 1939 onwards and therefore properties are not available for partition. A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 8 Learned counsel also pointed out that Ext.B1 traces the mortgage right of 1936 and at least an opportunity is to be granted to produce that mortgage deed so as to justify the claim of the defendants. 7. Learned Sub Judge, evidently did not properly appreciate the contentions of the parties. It is admitted case that item No. 1 belong to Chathu and under Ext.A1 will the properties were bequeathed in favour of Cheeru and her children. Therefore unless there is evidence to prove that the property did not belong to Chathu or was outstanding in possession of others, the property is definitely available for partition. Ext.B1 itself shows that the right obtained under Ext.A1 is admitted. What is stated in Ext.B1 is that Sumathi and others have mortgaged the property as per registered mortgage deed 1164/1936 dated 9.6.1936 and the donor Balakrishnan has got the mortgage right. It also shows that the mortgage was a simple mortgage and not a usufructory mortgage. The mortgage is referred in Ext.B1 as “Thodupanayadharam” which is another name for Chundupanayadharam, which is a simple mortgage. A reading of Ext.B1 establishes that the donor Balakrishnan never A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 9 claimed therein that he obtained possession of item No.1 of the plaint B schedule property, as per the registered mortgage deed 1164/1936. On the other hand, he only claims the mortgage money of 1700/- was due under the said mortgage deed. Ext.B1 shows that it is provided that the donees therein were granted the right to realize the mortgage money by sale of the mortgaged property or as provided under mortgage deed. Learned counsel appearing for defendants 21 to 24 and 26 argued that Ext.B1 shows that possession of item No.6 therein which is item No.1 of plaint B schedule was granted by the donor to the donees and therefore the donees obtained the possession of the property from 1939 onwards and hence the property is not available for partition. True, there is a recital in Ext.B1 that possession of item Nos.1 to 6 was handed over by the donor to the donees. But Ext.B1 itself establishes that item No. 1 to 5 were outstanding in the possession of the tenants and it is provided that the donees are entitled to receive the pattam due from the tenants and also recover possession of the property from the tenants. Therefore in spite of the recital in Ext.B1 that possession of item Nos.1 to 5 was handed over by the donor to A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 10 the donees, the document itself establishes that the said properties were outstanding in possession of the tenants and the donees did not get possession of the said properties. It is more clear because when the properties were divided under Ext.B2 partition deed, items 1 to 5 were not divided as the properties were not in their possession. Therefore for the reason that there is a recital in Ext.B1, the donor has handed over possession of all the properties, we cannot presume that item No. 6 of plaint schedule property was handed over to the donees, when thesimilar recitals in respect of the item Nos.1 to 5 is found to be not correct. Moreover when the mortgage is only a simple mortgage, the mortgagee cannot get possession of property. Hence the donor mortgagee cannot transfer possession under gift deed when he did not get it. Added to this the donor has not stated that he obtained possession of item No.1 of plaint B schedule property under the mortgage deed of 1936. Therefore even if defendants 20 to 26 are in possession of property, it cannot be under Ext.B1 or the mortgage and it could only be as members of the tarwad. If that be so, unless there is an ouster to the knowledge of the non possessing co-owners their right will A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 11 not be lost by adverse evidence. There is absolutely no evidence to prove ouster. DW2 the husband of the defendants No.22 when examined has not spoken anything about ouster. Though learned counsel appearing for the defendants 21 to 26, based on Ext.B3 purchase certificate argued that defendants have tenancy right, in the written statement no tenancy right was claimed. Moreover, when defendants 21 to 26 are also co-owners of the property, they could not have obtained jenmam right of the very same property as they are also landlords. Therefore based on Ext.B3 also it cannot be found that item No.1 of plaint B schedule property is not available for partition. Finding of the learned Sub Judge that item No.1 of plaint B schedule property is not available for partition is therefore set aside and it is found that item No.1 of plaint B schedule property is also available for partition. 8. Defendants 18 and 19 have claimed right over item Nos.6 to 8. They have filed separate written statements. The case of the eighteenth defendant in his written statement is that though jenmam right of item Nos.6 to 8 belong to the entire tarwad, the tarwad had gifted the properties to the thavazhi of A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 12 Cheeru and while properties were in the possession of the thavazhi the then karanavan of the thavazhi Kunhiraman leased the property on kuzhikanam right to his niece Kausalya who enjoyed the property till her death in 1964 and she died without husband and children and therefore her right devolved on her surviving sisters and brothers and thus Lakshmi, the mother of defendants 18 and 19 has 1/8 share and if item Nos. 6 to 8 are to be partitioned, they are to be divided only among the legal heirs of deceased Kousalya. Defendant No.19 also raised the very same plea in respect of item Nos.6 to 8 in paragraph 5 of the written statement. There was no specific plea of an exclusive tenancy right by either defendant No.18 or 19. Still the learned Sub Judge referred the claim raised by defendants 18 and 19 to Land Tribunal, Kuthuparamba under section 125(3) of Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal as per finding dated 8.8.1991 held that defendants 18 and 19 have tenancy right over item Nos. 6 to 8. But the order shows that what was claimed before the Land Tribunal was also that defendants 18 and 19 are the daughters of Lakshmi and as kuzhikanam lease was granted in favour of Kousalya and Kousalya died issueless and without A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 13 husband, her right devolved on her sisters and brothers and therefore Lakshmi their mother, obtained 1/8 share. The Land Tribunal found that under Ext.A1 the kuzhikanam lease was granted in 1941 and therefore Kousalya had tenancy right. There was no finding that defendants 18 and 19 have exclusive tenancy right. Instead the tenancy right claimed and upheld was only the tenancy right of Kousalya under Ext.A3. Learned Sub Judge accepting the said finding found tha item Nos.6 to 8 are not available for partition. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that when the defendants 18 and 19 are only claiming the right which was available to Kousalya under Ext.A3 and no exclusive right, the said properties should also be found to be available for partition. 9. Though eighteenth defendant (eighteenth respondent) in A.S.56 of 1993 appeared through Advocate Vanaja Madhavan, after the death of eighteenth respondent and respondent No.35 was impleaded as her legal heir nobody appeared. Nineteenth respondent/Nineteenth defendant did not appear in the appeals. 10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the supporting respondents, A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 14 defendants 18 and 19 have not claimed any exclusive tenancy right. What was contended by them in their written statement was that under Ext.A3 Kausalya the daughter of Cheeru had Kuzhikanam right which was granted by the Karanavan of thavazhi after obtaining a lease from the tarwad by his thavazhi and on the death of Kousalya issueless her right devolved on her legal heirs and Lakshmi the mother of defendants 18 and 19 are entitled to 1/8 share and they are entitled to that share. 11. Ext.A3 shows that items 6 to 8 of plaint B schedule properties belonged to the tarwad and from tarwad the gift was obtained by thavazhi sister of Kunhiraman and his sister Cheeru and while so the Karanavan Kunhiraman gifted his rights both individual and as Karanavan in favour of Cheeru and Cheeru has been in possession of property and while so the property was granted on Kuzhikanam right for twelve years in favour of Kousalya. Even if it is taken that Ext.A1 is a lease, when Kousalya died issueless and without a husband, her right would also devolve on her legal heirs. It is not disputed that Kousalya was a member of the Puthravakasam thavazhi. Sarada, Lakshmi, Sumathi, Saraswathi, Yesodha, Ambujakshi and defendants 1 and A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 15 2 are her brothers and sisters. Therefore on the death of Kousalya her right devolved on her brothers and sisters. Each of them or their legal heirs are entitled to get 1/8 share. As defendants 18 and 19 have no exclusive tenancy right and they are only claiming 1/8 share due to their mother Lakshmi, the finding of the learned Sub Judge that item Nos.6 to 8 are not available for partition is not sustainable. Item Nos.6 to 8 are also available for partition. 12. The trial court directed division of item Nos.2 to 5 to 48 shares and allotment of separate share to the plaintiffs and other defendants who have paid court fee. There is no dispute with regard to quantum of shares. As item No.1 of plaint B schedule property is also found available for partition being one item of the property covered under Ext.A1 the said property is also to be divided like item Nos.2 to 5. Item Nos.6 to 8 are available for partition as the property of deceased Kousalya. As it is admitted case that Kousalya was a member of Puthravakasam thavazhi, on the death of Kousalya in 1964 her right devolved on her legal heirs as provided under section 17 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As she did not leave behind any A.S.56/93 & A.S.285/ 93 16 sons or daughters, mother, father or husband, the property would devolve on the heirs of the mother, namely, children of Cheeru. Each of the children is entitled to 1/8 share. Defendants 9 to 17 together are entitled to 1/8 share due to Sarada. Defendants 18 and 19 are entitled to 1/8 share due to Lakshmi. Defendant No.39 is entitled to 1/8 share due to Sumathi. Defendants No.20 to 26 together are entitled to 1/8th share due to Saraswathi. Defendants No.27 to 31 together are entitled to 1/8 share due to Yesodha. Plaintiffs and defendants 30 to 38 together are entitled to 1/8 share due