1. Defendant 4 in his written statement pleaded that Chathakot was a branch of Parappathodi and also pleaded that Chathakot was never divided from Parappathodi. Issue 1 dealt with this plea of defendant 4 and the second part of the issue raised the point whether Chathakot was a portion of Parappathodi, It is true that in the issue it meant undivided portion as shown by the contrast to the former part of the issue. Still it raised the question whether, divided or undivided, it was really an off-shoot of Parappathodi.
2. The Subordinate Judge found in para 3 that all the four tarwads including Chathakot are separate but he gave no date for the separation of Chathakot. The earliest of the documents he refers to is dated 1894 Ex JJ. In the next para. 4 he took up the question whether Chathakot is nearer than the others and finds that it is an offshoot of Parappathodi. We do not think there is any surprise to the plaintiff in recording such a finding. We agree with Phillips, J., in accepting the finding, Chathakot is nearer the Paroppathodi and also Chathakot separated last. On any view of the law, defendant 4’s tarwad has preferential right and the suit is rightly dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of respondent 1.