The defendant was only given a life interest in the property without power of alienation. The plaintiffs, as the legatees and legal representatives of the deceased, are entitled to a share in the suit property.

.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. The plaintiffs have filed the suit against the sole defendant namely Dr.Jayakumar Kallat praying for "partition to divide the suit property into 5 equal shares by metes and bounds with reference to good and bad soil by appointing a commissioner or otherwise allotting one such share to each of the plaintiffs (totalling four shares to the plaintiffs) excluding T.S. No.18/4A3 measuring an extent of 51 cents with the building or in the alternative allotting the said portion to the 4th plaintiff and for costs." The suit was dismissed by the Court below which resulted in the present appeal by the plaintiffs/appellants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as Plaintiffs and defendants as they were arrayed before the Court below.

.3. The Plaint averments are as follows:-

.The Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendant are the sons and daughter of Dr. Sankunni Kallat, who died in the year 1971. The mother of the plaintiffs and defendant died subsequently in the year 1981. The suit property described in Schedule A and B was the self acquired property of Dr. Sankunni Kallat, who executed a registered Will dated 18.07.1969 with respect to A Schedule property consisting of hospital buildings and other buildings. As per the Will, the defendant shall enjoy the said property without power of alienation and the said properties must be used for hospital and clinic purpose. However, the defendant must improve the hospital out of the income derived from C schedule properties besides he must provide necessary family expenses for the plaintiffs 1 and 2 whenever they come to Pollachi. As far as the third plaintiff is concerned, the defendant must pay Rs.150/-per month towards his maintenance. In the Will, it was specifically stated that regarding the future mode of devolution, the plaintiffs and defendant shall decide it on their own. In other words, the intention of the testator was to improve the hospital, which is clearly reflected in the Will. The Testator himself was a Doctor by profession and he had earned name and fame by his hard work in the field. The defendant was given the right of management of the properties because he was the only person with medical qualification among his children.

.4. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant has not fulfilled his obligations or fulfilled the wishes of the testator. The defendant did not maintain the property properly and he had lead a wayward life diverting the income of the hospital to his own personal comforts. Regarding the future devolution of the property, the plaintiffs and defendant met on 08.04.1987, but no amicable solution could be found as the defendant dominated the plaintiffs and he was not amenable to any proposal. It was further contended that as per the wishes of the testator, the defendant did not make any improvement in the hospital. On the other hand, from the income derived out of A schedule property, the defendant purchased a property and put up a nursing home on his own. The property acquired by the defendant out of the income derived from the A Schedule property is described as B Schedule in the plaint. Even though the B Schedule property stands in the name of the defendant, the plaintiffs also have a share in that because B Schedule property was purchased from and out of the income derived from the A Schedule property.

5. The Plaintiffs would further contend that the fourth plaintiff got a property of her own, but the defendant, in order to harass the fourth plaintiff, has issued a notice for partition with respect to that property for which the fourth plaintiff issued suitable reply stating that she is the owner of that property. The Plaintiffs 1 to 3 also stood by the side of the fourth plaintiff and deprecated the defendant for having issued the notice, but this has infuriated the defendant and had led to further deterioration in the relationship between the parties. Sin