JUDGMENT

S.B. Majumdar, J.-This appeal, on grant of special leave, is moved by Defendant Nos. 1-4 in Original Suit No. 341 of 1968 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai in the State of Tamil Nadu. The said suit was filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein as plaintiffs against number of other defendants with which we are not concerned in this appeal. The said suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs undivided share in the suit properties scheduled A , B and C . It was contended that the plaintiffs and the 7th defendant were the sons of one Sivasankaran Pillai through his second wife, while the Defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 were the sons of the said Sivasankaran Pillai through his first wife. The 8th defendant was the second wife of Sivasankaran Pillai. Sivasankaran Pillai died on 27th January, 1956. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties were the ancestral properties of the said Sivasankaran Pillai who inherited the same. That the said properties remained as joint family properties and the plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 were continuing as undivided members of the joint family even after the death of Sivasankaran Pillai.

2. The contesting Defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 resisted the suit on various grounds. In the present proceedings, the dispute centers around schedule C properties only. Hence we may not dilate on other properties and the nature of dispute between the contesting defendants qua them. So far as schedule C properties wer concerned, the contention of the contesting defendants was that they were gifted by the original owner one Palanivelayutham Pillai by a Gift Deed dated 18th February, 1907 in favour of Madurai Devasthanam Tirupparankundram Andavar Subramaniaswamy and consequently, they were not liable to be partitioned amongst the descendants of said settlor. It was further contended that under the said Gift Deed the right of management of the aforesaid endowed properties was entrusted, on the death of the settlor, to his second wife who had to continue charitable performances for the deity along with her heirs and had to act as a trustee qua these properties. That the said designated trustee, the second wife of the settlor Pitchammal alias Ayudai Ammal, after the death of the settlor, had continued to manage the said properties as a trustee. That she had executed a General Power of Attorney on 3rd August, 1922 in favour R. Sivasankaran Pillai whose properties were sought to be got partitioned in the present suit. That, amongst others, the said Sivasankaran Pillai was entrusted with the task to manage and maintain schedule C properties and to perform the charitable activities as per the document executed by the deceased husband of Pitchammal. That by a Will dated 27th January, 1924, the said Pitchammal also appointed the very same Sivasankaran Pillai and his wife Subbammal who pre-deceased Sivasankaran Pillai, as successor trustees after her death. He alone, therefore, remained the repository of the right of management of schedule C properties. That the said Pitchammal died on 24th June, 1950 and thereafter Sivasankaran Pillai continued to manage the schedule C properties pursuant to the Will dated 27th January, 1924. That the said Sivasankaran Pillai, by his Will (Ex. B-487) dated 1st July, 1955, bequeath the rights of management and trusteeship to Defendant No. 9 K. Sethuramalingam Pillai, his son-in-law, so far as schedule C properties were concerned. While on the same day he executed another Will qua his other properties in favour of Defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6. The plaintiffs contention was that the aforesaid two Wills of Sivasankaran Pillai were unauthoried, illegal and inoperative at law. Earlier, the present appellants resisted the said suit and contended that the Wills were legal and valid but subsequently by an amended written statement Defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 parted company of Defendant No. 9 and submitted that Sivasankaran Pillai s Will (