JUDGMENT : A. Badharudeen, J. 4th defendant in O.S.No.153/2009 on the files of the Sub Court, Alappuzha, has preferred this appeal under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the decree and judgment in the above case, dated 30.6.2011. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 3. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendants’ with reference to their status before the trial court, hereafter. 4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that the plaint schedule properties originally belonged to one Andi Chandrasekharan, the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. Now, he died intestate, and therefore, properties are liable to be partitioned, and thereby, the plaintiff and defendants are entitled to get 1/5th share each in the plaint schedule property. 5. Defendants 1 to 4 filed joint written statement raising contention that the plaint schedule property is not partible, since due share was given to the plaintiff already. The further contention raised by the defendants 1 to 4 was that, A.C.Thankaraj is another son of Andi Chandrasekharan. Though he is no more, his legal heirs are entitled to get share over the plaint schedule property and accordingly, question of non-joinder was raised. Subsequently, plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.574/2011 and 604/2011 and accordingly, additional defendants 5 and 6 got impleaded as the legal heirs of A.C.Thankaraj. 6. The trial court addressed the rival contentions by framing appropriate issues and recorded evidence. Evidence confined to that of Exts.A1 to A4 series. 7. Finally, the trial court found that the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 4 and late A.C.Thankaraj are the legal heirs of Andi Chandrasekharan and accordingly, preliminary decree of partition was passed granting 1/6th share to the plaintiff. Thus, preliminary decree of partition is granted as under: “In the result, a preliminary decree is passed in the following lines: (a) The plaint schedule property shall be partitioned by metes and bounds for separation of 1/6th share to the plaintiff. (b) The plaintiff shall file an application for Final Decree within 3 months from the date. (c) The equities and reservations will be considered at the time of passing the Final Decree. (d) Considering the relationship between the parties, they shall bear their respective costs. (e) The suit is adjourned sine die.” 8. (b) The plaintiff shall file an application for Final Decree within 3 months from the date. (c) The equities and reservations will be considered at the time of passing the Final Decree. (d) Considering the relationship between the parties, they shall bear their respective costs. (e) The suit is adjourned sine die.” 8. While assailing the preliminary decree of partition, the learned counsel for the appellant/4th defendant raised a contention that, even though the 4th defendant filed written statement along with defendants 1 to 3, raising issue of non-joinder on the assertion that the legal heirs of A.C.Thankaraj, were not made as parties to the suit, as per Gift Deed No.75/1982 of Ambalappuzha SRO executed by the father, Andi Chandrasekharan, 5 cents of property assigned to A.C.Thankaraj and thereby, his right to get partition in the remaining portion of the father’s property has been relinquished. Therefore, the matter would require remand to re-consider the share excluding A.C.Thankaraj from the purview of partition. Even though the learned counsel submitted that another gift deed was executed by the mother in favour of A.C.Thankaraj, the same has no bearing on the facts of this case. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff supported the preliminary decree of partition. 10. In view of the rival contentions, the points arise for consideration are; 1) Whether the contention raised by the 4th defendant in derogation to his contention in the written statement is liable to succeed? 2) Whether the decree and judgment of the trial court would require interference? 3) Reliefs and costs. 11. While addressing point No.1, I have gone through the written statement filed by the 4th defendant/appellant along with defendants 1 to 3. In the written statement, the specific contention raised by the 4th defendant is that, the plaint schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of the 4th defendant and the share of the plaintiff was already allotted to her in exclusion of the plaint schedule property and therefore, the plaintiff did not get any right over the plaint schedule property. The second contention raised in the written statement is that the legal heirs of A.C.Thankaraj, another son of Andi Chandrasekharan, not brought on record and thereby, the suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties. The second contention raised in the written statement is that the legal heirs of A.C.Thankaraj, another son of Andi Chandrasekharan, not brought on record and thereby, the suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties. In view of filing of the written statement, plaintiff impleaded additional defendants 5 and 6 in the party array, being the legal heirs of A.C.Thankaraj. Thus, it appears that the contention now raised by the 4th defendant in this appeal, relying on the gift deed executed by the father/Andi Chandrasekharan, not raised before the trial court and a new contention in derogation from the pleadings has been addressed in this appeal. Anyhow, the trial court had no option to address the said contention. 12. It is the well settled law that a civil dispute to be adjudicated by the court in tune within the pleadings, supported by evidence. Thus, a party to a civil suit is bound by the pleadings and a party cannot raise a new contention in an appeal in derogation from the specific pleading raised before the trial court and without support of pleadings. It is relevant to note that, if at all the father executed the gift deed in favour of A.C.Thankaraj, that by itself would not exclude the legal heirs of A.C.Thankaraj from the purview of partition of the properties left by the father, unless the contra intention is pleaded and proved. Here, the appellant raised a contention in deviation from the written statement, he filed. Therefore, the same cannot be considered. Point No.1 answered thus. 13. Thus, it is concluded that in the case at hand, after referring the pleadings of the parties and relying on the evidence adduced, the trial court rightly granted preliminary decree of partition and the same does not require any interference. Point No.2 answered accordingly. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Considering the nature of this case, parties shall suffer their respective costs. All interlocutory orders stand vacated and all interlocutory applications pending in this appeal, stand dismissed.