JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. The appellants are the legal heirs of the plaintiffs in a suit for partition. They have been non suited concurrently by the courts below, but, interestingly, the findings are divergent. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The plaint ‘A’ schedule property originally belonged to one Kandan and Sankaran jointly. Kandan had three daughters with his wife, Unniyeyi. Kandan died in the year 1925 and thereafter, his wife Unniyeyi married Sankaran and had two sons. It is pointed out that Sankaran died in the year 1944, whereas Unniyeyi died in the year 1946. The parties are governed by Makkathayam law since they are Thiyyas from Kozhikode District. The male children of Sankaran partitioned the plaint schedule property in the year 1963 and thereafter, were in absolute possession of the properties and they had dealt as though the properties were theirs. It has come out that there was an inter se partition suit between the sons of Raghavan and legal heirs of Raghavan bought certain extent of property in pursuance to the judgment and decree in a suit for partition. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs, who are grandchildren of Unniyeyi, through the female heirs, claimed that the plaint schedule property must be divided into half. The suit was resisted by the defendants by contending that the daughters of Kandan will not get any right over the property and the right, if any, has been lost by ouster because of the inter se partition in the year 1963 and the failure of the daughters of Kandan to raise an objection to the said partition. The trial court dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiffs cannot plead ignorance of the inter se partition as well as the suit filed by the legal heirs of Raghavan for getting separate possession. Accordingly, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.162 of 2012. Before the appellate stage, the appellants tried to raise a new plea by seeking a prayer to amend the plaint by filing I.A.No.517 of 2016, wherein it was contended that after the death of Sankaran, his wife Unniyeyi will get equal share over the property. No further pleadings were sought to be incorporated except to the extent above. Before the appellate stage, the appellants tried to raise a new plea by seeking a prayer to amend the plaint by filing I.A.No.517 of 2016, wherein it was contended that after the death of Sankaran, his wife Unniyeyi will get equal share over the property. No further pleadings were sought to be incorporated except to the extent above. The First Appellate Court by judgment dated 29.03.2016 confirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that the sufficient cause has not been shown for allowing the application.Aggrieved, the present appeal is preferred. 3. Heard Sri.V.T.Madhavanunni, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.Pramod Kumar.M for respondents 1 to 6, 14 to 17, Sri.P.A.Harish, learned counsel appearing for respondents 10 to 12 and Sri.C.Varghese Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 to 9. 4. Sri.V.T.Madhavanunni, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the 1 st appellate court was not justified in dismissing the application for amendment. When a plea was raised that the wife of Sankaran, late Unniyeyi, was also entitled for a share, the appellate court ought to have allowed the application and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration and in not doing so, the court has committed illegality and not afforded a fair trial to the case projected by the appellants. As regards the plaint for partition in respect of the property, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that, at present, the plaint will be confined to the validity of the amendment being disallowed by the courts below. 5. Per contra, Sri.P.A Harish, learned counsel appearing for respondents 10 to 12 contended that even assuming that the amendment is allowed and the matter is remanded for a fresh trial, the plaintiffs cannot succeed in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sivananda Prabhu v. S.N.Govinda Prabhu & Brothers [ 2025 (6) KHC 567 ] . As regards the claim for partition, the courts below correctly declined the reliefs since the female heirs of a deceased male will not get any right over the property going by the decision of the Supreme Court in Kelukutty and others v. Mammad and others [ 1972 (2) SCC 591 ]. 6. As regards the claim for partition, the courts below correctly declined the reliefs since the female heirs of a deceased male will not get any right over the property going by the decision of the Supreme Court in Kelukutty and others v. Mammad and others [ 1972 (2) SCC 591 ]. 6. Sri.Pramod Kumar M., learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 6 and 14 to 17 supported the contention of Sri.P.A.Harish, learned counsel appearing for respondents 10 to 12 and further contended that the first defendant had raised a specific plea of ouster it has been found in their favour. The properties were partitioned in the year 1963 and that three daughters of Kandan, who were excluded, did not raise any objection to the same. At any rate, the property assigned between the sons of Sankaran was further divested through several other registered documents which constituted as a constructive notice to the plaintiffs and subject to the said documents had appropriate time to constitute as a clear ouster as far as the claim is concerned. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and perused the judgments rendered by the courts below and also the records of the case. 8. In order to appreciate the claim of the appellants that the first appellate court was not justified in dismissing the application for amendment, one needs to consider the scope of amendment which is sought for. A perusal of I.A.No.517 of 2016 filed in the appeal shows the extend of amendment which is sought for. The same is read as under: The extracted portion of the averment in the amendment application would clearly show that except for incorporating certain averments in the plaint, the nature of relief which is sought for based on the amendment is not sought for. Therefore, this Court is inclined to think that except for incorporating additional facts in the plaint, no further relief has been sought for. 9. Even on assuming that, based on the aforesaid amendment what has been sought for is the extent of share which Unniyeyi was entitled to inherit from late Sankaran, and that the plaintiffs claimed their right traced through their mothers who are daughters of Unniyeyi, even then the claim is unsustainable, as it has come out in evidence that Unniyeyi died in the year 1946 i.e., prior to the Hindu Succession Act , 1956. Going by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sivananda Prabhu (supra), the female heirs are not entitled to inherent share over the ancestoral property prior to 1956. If that be so, this Court finds that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the application for amendment and remitting the matter back for a fresh consideration on the merits. Resultantly, this Court holds that the findings rendered by the courts below are perfectly correct and does not call for any interference in exercise of its powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Resultantly, the substantial question of law framed in the appeal are answered against the appellants. Consequently, the appeal fails and the appeal stands dismissed.