JUDGMENT : 1. Defendants 4 and 5 in OS 257/2012 on the file of the 1 st Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur are the appellants. For the purpose of convenience the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court. 2. The plaintiff Thankamani filed the about Suit for partition. Defendants 1 to 3 are her children and defendants 4 and 5 are the wife and minor son of her predeceased son Rajan. In the suit there are three items of properties, namely, plaint 'A', 'B' and 'C schedules. As per the plaint, plaint 'A' schedule item Nos.1 to 4 were purchased by the plaintiff's husband Ramakrishnan as per various documents and item Nos.5 and 6 were obtained by him as per partition deed No.1396/1977. Plaint 'B' schedule was obtained by Late Rajan, as per partition deed No.1396/1977. Plaint 'C' schedule property was purchased by deceased Rajan along with the 2 nd defendant Renjan. Ramakrishnan died intestate on 19.11.1986 and Rajan died intestate on 1.11.2007. According to the plaintiff, on the death of Ramakrishnan plaint 'A' schedule property devolved upon the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 and Rajan. Further according to the plaintiff, on the death of Rajan plaint 'B' schedule property and his share in plaint 'A' and 'C' schedules devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5. It was in the above context that she preferred the Suit for partition. 3. Defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement admitting the plaint claim. Defendants 4 and 5 filed written statement admitting that plaint 'A' schedule property is liable to be partitioned. However, according to them, plaint 'B' schedule is not partible, as the said property originally belonged to Rajan, the husband of the 4 th defendant and son of the 5 th defendant. Further according to them, plaint 'C' schedule items 3, 4 and 5 were purchased by Rajan using the amount received from the 4 th defendant. Therefore, it is contended that plaint 'C' schedule items 3, 4 and 5 are also not partible. 4. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of the 2 nd defendant as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B8. No evidence was adduced by the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5. Defendants 4 and 5 did not even cross- examined DW1. 4. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of the 2 nd defendant as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B8. No evidence was adduced by the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5. Defendants 4 and 5 did not even cross- examined DW1. Therefore, in the light of the evidence on record, the trial Court found that the derivation of title pleaded in the plaint is true and that there is no merits in the claim raised by defendants 4 and 5. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the Suit and a preliminary decree was passed as per the following terms : (a) Plaint 'A' schedule property shall be divided into 15 equal shares. Plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 is allotted 4/15 shares each and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are together entitled to get 2/15 shares. (b) Plaint 'B' schedule property shall be divided into 3 equal shares. Plaintiff is entitled to get 1/3 rd share and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are each entitled to get 1/3 rd share. (c) Plaint 'C' schedule property shall be divided into 6 equal shares plaintiff and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are each entitiled to get 1/6 th share each and 2 nd defendant is entitiled to get 3/6 share. (d) The share shall be allotted to defendants on payment of requisite court fee. (e) Any of the parties can apply for passing of final decree in which event an advocate commissioner shall be appointed for partition of property by metes and bounds on the ground. (f) The party who produces the stamp paper for engrossing the final decree can realise the proportionate share from other sharers. (g) Equity and reservation shall be considered at the final decree stage. (h) The cost of the suit shall come out of the estate. (i) Suit is adjourned sine-die. 5. Aggrieved by the above preliminary decree, defendants 4 and 5 preferred this appeal. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the impugned preliminary decree passed by the trial court calls for any interference in the light of the grounds raised in the appeal ? 6. Heard Sri. M.R. Venugopal, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. P.B. Krishnan, the learned senior counsel for the 3 rd respondent/2 nd defendant. 7. 6. Heard Sri. M.R. Venugopal, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. P.B. Krishnan, the learned senior counsel for the 3 rd respondent/2 nd defendant. 7. The point :- The trial court on the basis of the evidence on record found that plaint 'B' schedule property exclusively belonged to Rajan while 'C' schedule property belonged to Rajan as well as the 2 nd defendant Renjan and 'A' schedule property belonged to late Ramakrishnan. Accordingly, the 'A' schedule property is to be first divided into five shares among the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 and deceased Rajan. On the death of Rajan, his 1/5 share equally devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5. Therefore, from plaint A schedule property the plaintiff will get 4/15 share, defendants 1 to 3 will get 3/15 share each and the defendants 4 and 5 together will get 2/15 share. However, in the preliminary decree the trial court held that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to get 4/15 share each, which is not correct and as such it is liable to be corrected accordingly. The 'B' schedule property was divided into three among the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5 and 1/3 share each was allotted to each of them. Since plaint 'C' schedule belonged to Rajan and 2 nd defendant, his half share was separately allotted to him and the remaining one half was divided among the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5. At the time of arguments, both sides have not raised any serious objection regarding the shares as decided by the trial court with respect to plaint B and C schedule properties. 8. The main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that during the pendency of the appeal, the original plaintiff Thankamani died and as such, her share in the plaint schedule properties also is to be shared among her legal heirs. Though the learned counsel would argue that Thankamani died intestate, the learned counsel for defendants 2 and 3 would argue that Thankamani had executed a will in their favour and as such, the share of Thankamani is not partible among defendants 1, 4 and 5. Though the learned counsel would argue that Thankamani died intestate, the learned counsel for defendants 2 and 3 would argue that Thankamani had executed a will in their favour and as such, the share of Thankamani is not partible among defendants 1, 4 and 5. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent (2 nd defendant) would submit that with respect to partition of the share of Thankamani, an application has already been preferred before the trial court with prayer for passing a supplementary preliminary decree and as such, this Court sitting in appeal need not look into the fact whether Thankani died intestate or otherwise, as it is a matter to be adjudicated by the trial court. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is not aware of the pendency of any such application before the trial court and he apprehends that before passing any such supplementary preliminary decree, the trial court may proceed to pass final decree and in that case, there will be much inconvenience and hardships to the parties. As submitted by the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent, such an apprehension can be addressed by giving a direction to the trial court to pass final decree only after disposing of the application filed for passing supplementary preliminary decree in the Suit. 10. In the result, this appeal is liable to be allowed in part as follows: While confirming the preliminary decree passed by the trial court as against Plaint B and C schedules, the share of defendants 1 to 3 from plaint A schedule property is limited to 3/15 share each. The share of the plaintiff and the defendants 4 and 5 from A schedule property as fixed by the trial court is accepted. 11. There will be a direction to the trial court, not to pass the final decree in this case, till the application filed for passing supplementary preliminary decree for partitioning the share of the original plaintiff/Thankamani is disposed of. Considering the facts, I order no costs. 12. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand closed.