The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the will and the intention of the testator in making the disposition of the property in favor of the thavazhi of Kannan. The judgment also clarifies the legal principles of adverse possession by a karanavan and the maintainability of a suit for partition and allotment of shares in the property.

1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.5 of 1976 on the file of the Court of Munsiff, Hosdurg is the appellant in this Second Appeal. This Second Appeal came before us on a reference by Dr.Kochu Thommen J.

2. The appellant filed a suit for partition on the allegation that plaint schedule property belonged in leasehold right to one Veluthambadi, the father of the respondent herein, that by a registered Will Ext.Al dated 30-8-1955, Veluthambadi bequeathed the property along with other items to the thavazhi of his nephew Kannan with a direction that the properties would be held and enjoyed as thavazhi properties of Kannan, that the members of the thavazhi of Kannan assigned their right in favour of the appellant and that Kannan's share was obtained by the respondent herein under a sale deed from Kannan.

3. The suit was resisted by the respondent who contended that as per the terms of the Will Ext. Al the bequest was not in favour of Kannan's thavazhi but Kannan himself, that the thavazhi members had no right in the property and that therefore the appellant had not derived any right to the property by virtue of the alleged purchase.

4. The trial court took the view that the bequest under Ext. Al was in favour of the thavazhi of Kannan and that the appellant was entitled to a decree for partition. In this view of the matter, the trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition.

5. On appeal by respondent, learned Subordinate Judge took the view that in the earlier pan of the Will evidenced by Ext.Al, there was an absolute bequest in favour of Kannan and that in the circumstances, the restriction that the property would be enjoyed by the thavazhi of Kannan was inoperative and invalid in law. He also held that in any event Kannan had prescribed title by adverse possession and limitation. Accordingly the Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

6. In this Second Appeal, the appellant plaintiff has challenged the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge. Learned single judge felt that the question whether a karanavan can prescribe hostile title against the members of thavazhi is an important question of law and that the dictum laid down in the decision in Paru v. Chiruthai (1985 K.L.T.563) that under no circumstances, a co-owner can claim adverse possession requires to be re-examined and it was under those circumstances that the matter was referred to be heard by a Division Bench.

7. To appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to quote the operative portion of Ext.Al which reads as follows:

portion of the document, A schedule properties are described as"

8. Learned counsel for the appellant strongly relied on the recital in the document that A schedule property has to be enjoyed as thavazhi property and also on the description of property as A schedule property to be enjoyed by his nephew Kannan representing the thavazhi

9. Learned counsel for the respondent however contended that there is an absolute disposition in favour of Kannan in the earlier part of the Will and subsequent restriction in the mode of enjoyment by Kannan cannot be operative and is void. Learned counsel on both sides placed before us large number of authorities in support of their respective contentions.

10. In Ramachandra Shenoy and another v. Mrs. Hilda Brite and Others (A.I.R. 1964 S.C.1323), the Supreme Court said:

"It is one of the cardinal principles of construction of wills that to the extent that it is legally possible effect should be given to every disposition contained in the will unless the law prevents effect being given to it. Of course, if there are two repugnant provisions conferring successive interests if the first interest created is valid the subsequent interest cannot take effect but a Court of construction will proceed to the farthest extent to avoid repugnancy, so that effect could be given as far as possible to every testamentary intention contained in the will. It is for this reason that where there is