The conduct of the parties to a partition is crucial in establishing estoppel, and positive evidence of consent from the widow is not necessary to establish estoppel.

Kunhi Raman, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The question of law arising in this case relates to the legal effect of a partition made as between two reversioners during the lifetime of a Hindu widow and before the reversion had opened.

2. To appreciate the contention of the appellants learned advocate it is necessary to advert briefly to the facts of the case: The following pedigree shows the relationship between the parties:

Arungugha Padayachi | ___________________________________________________ | | Ranga Padayachi died issueless Alaga Padayachi (Wife Annammai who died in 1930) | ____________________________ | | Sadasiva Padayachi Adimoola Padayachi (m. Annammai 2nd Deft.) (Plaintiff). | Samalappa Padayachi(wife Kasi Ammal 1st Deft.)

3. Annammai the widow of Ranga Padayachi was in possession of the plaint A schedule properties during her lifetime. She died in 1930. In 1916, when her husbands nephews Sadasiva and Adimoola were reversioners to the widow Annam-mais estate a partition of the A schedule properties was effected between these two men, and ever since the suit properties continued to be enjoyed by Sadasiva till his death and after his death by his widow Annammai who is the second defendant and by his son Samiappas widow Kasi Ammal who is the first defendant. It appears from the judgments of the Courts below that, although Annammai, the widow of Ranga Padayachi, was not a consenting party to the partition yet she had in effect abandoned these properties, having left the village where, the properties are situated and taken up her residence in another village. She did not care what happened to these properties, and what can be gathered from the judgments of the Courts below is that she did not object to her husbands nephews Sadasiva and Adimoola taking possession of these properties and dividing them during her lifetime.

4. Sadasiva died as already stated during the lifetime of the widow Annammai. But the share that was allotted to Sadasiva at the partition devolved on his son Samiappa. Samiappa also died and his share went to his mother Annammamai (Sadasivas widow) and his own widow Kasiammal the first defendant. Adimoola continued to enjoy the share which fell to him at the partition. When Ranga Padayachis widow Annammai died in 1930 Adimoola conceived the idea of claiming the entire properties in his capacity as the nearest reversioner and he filed O.S. No. 96 of 1939 from which this second appeal arises. For the purpose of this second appeal, reference need be made only to three out of the four items of properties mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint, the second appeal being restricted to these three items. The view taken by the learned District Munsiff and by the lower appellate Court is that the case comes within the scope of the decision reported in Somi Naidu v. Sitaramayya (1925) 22 L.W. 716. There was an attempt made on behalf of the appellant to show that the partition could not be recognised because on its date Sadasiva and Adimoola were only entitled to a spes successionis, that is to say, a bare right to succeed on the death of Ranga Padayacis widow. But both the Courts find that it was not a bare right that was partitioned. They had actual possession of the three items of properties involved in this appeal and they did effectively divide those properties and enjoy them ever since the partition in 1916 without any protest by any party. In the circumstances, both the Courts below have held that it is not open to Adimoola to go back upon that partition arrangement since he is estopped from doing so. That was the view taken by Phillips, J., in the case reported in Somi Naidu v. Sitaramayya (1925) 22 L.W. 716. The plaintiff-appellants learned advocate argues that the case in Somi Naidu v. Sitaramayya (1925) 22 L.W. 716 can be distinguished from the present case because there was a finding that the widow. concerned had consented to the partition. On a perusal of the judgment it does not appear that t