The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of the estate taken up by the widows and the intention behind the partition, based on which the court concluded that the division was only for the sake of convenience and did not involve giving up the right of survivorship.

Viswanatha Sastri, J.

1. Appeal by plaintiff against the decree of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly, in O.S. No. 39 of 1919. The facts which gave rise to the suit are as follows: One Shanmuga Kumaraswami Mudaliar died on January 15th, 1892, leaving two widows Parasakti Vadivu Anni,. and Kaliani Anni (plaintiff) as his heirs. The two widows "to suit their convenience", divided some of the properties into equal moities, and the income from other properties was also similarly divided, as also debts due to the family. Parasakti died on December 10th, 1915, and, on her death, all the properties which she was enjoying accrued to plaintiff by right of survivorship. The properties which were in the enjoyment of Parasakti yielded an annual income of Rs. 6,000. The 1st defendant who is the next reversioner, fraudulently induced Parasakti to execute a sale-deed in his favour with respect to the properties specified in some of the schedules ; and he also induced her to execute another sale-deed with respect to certain other properties in favour of the 7th defendants father, benami for himself. A third sale-deed was executed in respect of certain other properties in favour of one Ramalinga Mudaliar, who is the son of 1st defendants maternal uncle. Subsequent to these transactions, the 1st defendant obtained two other sale-deeds with respect to properties comprised in Schedule III, and he also obtained a usufructuary deed of mortgage with respect to properties comprised in Schedule XXVI. All these transactions were entered into without any legal necessity and with a view to defraud plaintiff. The 1st defendant also received monies from the Taluk Board, Shermadevi, which were legally due to plaintiff. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are the undivided sons of the 1st defendant. Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 are the widows of Renganatha Mudaliar the undivided elder brother of the 1st defendant and the 7th defendant is the son of the 1st defendants sister. Hence the suit for the recovery of the properties that were in the possession of Parasakti Vadivu Anni, together with mesne profits. The 1st, defendant contended that plaintiff and Parasakti effected an absoulte partition of the properties, that each gave up the right she had to succeed to the properties that fell to the share of the other by right of survivorship; that the alienations sought to be impeached were for purposes binding on the estate, and that plaintiff was not. entitled to any relief. Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 adopted the written statement of the 1st defendant. The 7th defendant contended that the alienations-in his favour were for purposes binding on the estate. The 8th defendant was added as a supplementary defendant on the ground that the property specified in Sch. XXV was in her possession, but she disclaimed all interest therein. The 9th defendant was also, subsequent to the suit, added as a party, on the ground that he claimed an interest in Schedules. XXV and LIX. He pleaded that the alienations were binding on the estate. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the division between the widows was only for the sake of convenience, that neither of them gave up the right she had to succeed to the properties in the possession of the other, and that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the properties comprised in all the Schedules, except Schedules. II, XII, and XIII. The appeal relates to properties with respect to which possession was not decreed and the 1st defendant filed a memorandum of objections with respect to the items decreed and which were in his possession. A similar memorandum of objections was filed by the 7th defendant.

2. In dealing with the memorandum of objections the question to be considered is, the nature of the estate taken up by the widows by reason of the arrangement said to have been come to between them. The contention of the plaintiff is that they were in enjoyment of separate portions simply for the sake of convenience, where