ISMAIL, J. :- The question that arises for decision in this appeal is, whether the buildings situate in an impartible estate which has been notified under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948) hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act, vesting in the landholder under the provisions of Section 18(4) of the Abolition Act, continued to retain their character of impartibility or not.

2. Defendants 20 to 25 in O. S. No. 26 of 1956 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli are the appellants herein. The suit itself was instituted as an interpleader one by the Court of Wards. Madras represented, by the Estate Collector of Sivagiri Estate. The last principal holder of the estate, one V.R.P. Chinnathambiar, Zamindar of Sivagiri, applied to the Court of Wards, for the estate being taken over and managed by it, as it was in an involved condition. The Court of Wards took over the management of the estate in 1941 under the provisions of the Court of Wards Act 1 of 1902 and continued to management till the estate was taken over by the State Government on 3-1-1951 under the provisions of the Abolition Act. Defendants 1 and 2 are the widows of the last landholder, who died on 16-8-1955. Defendants 3 and 4 are his sons by the first wife, namely, the first defendant. Defendants 5 and 6 are the minor sons of the landholder by his second wife, the second defendant. The third defendant is the seniormost male member of the family. The third defendant claimed the entire properties in himself as the seniormost mate member and heir of the last landholder. The second defendant also claimed the entire properties on behalf of her minor son, the sixth defendant, on the ground that he alone was an undivided member of the family of the last landholder. Defendants 2 and 3 by their petitions dated 31-7-1955 and 23-9-1955 respectively addressed to the Court of Wards claimed the entire estate as theirs to the exclusion of others. Since the dispute involved the right of succession to the estate and a division of the properties among the defendants who were setting up rival claims, the Court of Wards filed the interpleader suit referred to above impleading all the parties who claimed any right to or interest in the properties. Among the properties described in the schedules. Schedule II to the plaint comprises buildings. With regard to the said buildings, the third defendant, the seniormost male member in the family put forward the contention that he alone was exclusively entitled to those properties and the other members of the Zamindar's family were not entitled to claim any share in the same as members of the joint family. The third defendant had alienated some items of the properties in the second schedule to the plaint in favour of the 18th defendant who had also purchased certain other items in that schedule in Court-auction sale and consequently the 18th defendant himself put forward the same contentions as those put forward by the third defendant.

During the pendency of the suit, the 18th defendant died and the present appellants were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased 18th defendant. In their written statement, they reiterated the contentions put forward by defendants 3 and 18 as to the buildings which were described in the second schedule to the plaint belonging exclusively to the third defendants and he being competent to dispose of the same and the other members of the family not having any right to a share therein. In the suit itself it was decided at an earlier stage that the civil court had no jurisdiction to deal with the lands which were originally included in the plaint but it had jurisdiction to deal on with the buildings described in Schedule II to the plaint. Consequently the suit came to be disposed of by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, on 29-3-1965 with reference to the said building