ORDER 1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in AS No. 665 of 1995(D) dated 14-2-2002 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent herein was b allowed by the High Court and the judgment and decree dated 18-3-1995 of the Principal Sub-Judge, Kochi in OS No. 187 of 1992 was modified. 2. Appellant 1 herein is the plaintiff whereas Appellant 2 is his mother. Appellants 3 and 4 are his brothers and Appellants 5 to 9 are his sisters. The respondent is another brother of the appellant. Their father Xavier owned a c grocery shop. He died on 11-10-1969. 3. The case of Appellant I-plaintiff was that the land in the suit measuring 131/2 cents was occupied by Xavier in exercise of his kudikidappu right at the time of his death. Some years after his death the landlord approached the family members and agreed to sell the lands in their occupation. It also appears that on 2-10-1996, the appellant herein entered d into an agreement with the landlord for the sale of the land in question. However, later on 24-2-1997 a sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent herein (Defendant 9 in the suit) for a consideration of Rs 6300. It also appears from the record that till 1991 there was no dispute and all the members of the family were living together. It was only in the year 1991 that the respondent (Defendant 9 in the suit) separated from the rest of the family e and started residing separately. A legal notice was served upon him for partition of the lands to which he did not respond, which ultimately led to the filing of a partition suit in the year 1992. 4. The trial court decreed the suit only on the ground that the mother, Appellant 2 herein (Defendant 1 in the suit) only was capable of paying the consideration amount of Rs. 6300 and no other family member was in a f position to pay the consideration amount. 5. The High Court in appeal set aside the finding of the trial court holding that the respondent herein had also sufficient means to purchase the property. 6300 and no other family member was in a f position to pay the consideration amount. 5. The High Court in appeal set aside the finding of the trial court holding that the respondent herein had also sufficient means to purchase the property. However, recognising the kudikidappu right of the members of the family of Xavier, the High Court decreed the claim of the appellants herein to the extent of their share in 3 cents of land which was permissible under the relevant law. So far as the rest of the land is concerned, it held that the sale deed was in favour of the respondent herein and the appellants could not claim partition of the same since the land belonged to the respondent. 6. It was argued before us on behalf of the appellants that in view of the finding of the trial court that only the mother (Appellant 2 herein) had the capacity to purchase the property, it ought to be held that the lands belonged to her and even though she set up a claim in her written statement denying the right of the plaintiff to claim partition on the ground that the land belonged to her, at the stage of evidence she conceded the right of the plaintiff and other members of the family and agreed to a partition of the lands in question. We are afraid that on the basis of such a concession a decree for partition could not be passed, because the land did not stand recorded in her name, and the same is claimed by the respondent herein as his self-acquired property under the sale deed executed in his favour. 7. One other feature of the case is that the mother could not have acquired the kudikidappu right inasmuch as admittedly she possessed two houses and 4 cents of land, which made her ineligible for claiming the kudikidappu right. 8. Counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the mother purchased the property benami in the name of the respondent herein. The High Court has rejected this contention based on the provisions of the Benami (Prohibition and Transfer of Property) Act, 1998. The High Court has also relied upon a written statement filed by the mother Ext. B-4 in another suit where she conceded that the property had been purchased by the respondent herein. 9. The High Court has rejected this contention based on the provisions of the Benami (Prohibition and Transfer of Property) Act, 1998. The High Court has also relied upon a written statement filed by the mother Ext. B-4 in another suit where she conceded that the property had been purchased by the respondent herein. 9. In view of the facts noticed above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. No order as to the costs.