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. Th