1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Ext.B4 evidences partition or is it merely a maintenance arrangement. The lower court held that it amounts to partition and disruption of the family and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said decree, the plaintiff has come up in appeal.

2. The suit was one for partition. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 16 belong to an undivided Aliyasanthana family. The plaintiff claimed 1/7 share in plaint B and C schedule properties. Pointing out that he did not wish to continue the joint status the suit was laid.

3. Defendants 4 and 5 resisted the suit. They pointed out that by Ext.B4 document dated 27.2.1940 there had already been a partition in the family and properties were allotted to various sharers. Details of the devolution of the property have been narrated in the written statement, which is not very relevant for the present purpose. Suffice it to say, they prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

4. The other defendants have also filed separate written statements, most of them claiming their separate share and supporting the plaintiff.

5. On the above pleadings issues were raised by the trial court. The evidence consists of the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A4 from the side of the plaintiff. The contesting defendants examined D.W.1 and had Exts.B1 to B4 marked. The trial court applying Section 36(6) of the Madras Aliyasanthanam Act, 1949 came to the conclusion that Ext.B4 evidences partition in the family and therefore the suit is not maintainable. Having so found, it did not go into the other issues that arose in the case and dismissed the suit.

6. The only question that arises for consideration, as already mentioned, is whether the finding of the trial court is justified.

7. It may be noticed that the parties are governed by Aliyasanthanam Law. Before going into the merits of the case, it will be useful to understand what are the attributes of Aliyasanthanam Law.

8. Aliyasanthanam Law resembles to a great extent the Marumakkathayam law and the common element in both the systems is that the inheritance under which the property descends is in the line of females. P.R.Sundara Aiyar in his book Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law mentions that Aliyasanthanam Law is the exact Canarese equivalent to the term Marumakkathayam. Aliyasanthana system of law is mostly followed by non-Bhrahmin communities in Tulunada or otherwise known as Canara and mostly speak Tulu. The word corresponding to Marumagan in Tulu is Marumaya. It is believed that the rules of Aliyasanthana Law has its origin in Canarese pamphlet known as Bhutala Pandya's Kattu Kattalai. In fact the Bunts, the Billawas and the non-Priestly class among the Jainas in Kanara are governed by this system.

9. Like in the case of Marumakkathayam Law, Aliyasanthana is a system of inheritance through female line which gives property right to the lady and the rights are centralized around her. So also in Aliyasanthana system more importance is given to the mother's side of the family. It would appear that more respect is given to maternal uncles than to paternal uncles. In this system of law the eldest member is known as Ejaman and the eldest female member is known as Ejamanthi. The senior-most member, whether male or female, is entitled to carry on the family management. No member of the tarwad had a right to claim partition or separate possession of his share without the concurrence of other members. Just as statutory intervention in the Marumakkathayam law brought about some healthy changes in the Marumakkathayam law, the same happened in the case of Aliyasanthanam law also with the coming into force of the Madras Aliyasanthanam Act of 1949. A member was given a right to separate himself or herself from the joint family and claim partition. The ascertainment of share at the time of partition is per capita and not per stripes. The vital difference between Aliyasanthana system and Marumakkatayam law is tha