The main legal point established in the judgment is that an oral partition between co-widows can preclude the rights of survivorship, and the intention to give up the right of survivorship may be inferred from the circumstances and recitals in the partition deeds.

Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. Chokkalingam Pillai died about 35 years ago leaving no issue, and on his death two widows, Valliammai and Minakshiayi, inherited his properties. The two widows sold certain properties belonging to the estate to pay off the debts incurred by their husband. Chokkalingam Pillai, and afterwards they entered-into an oral partition by which each got about nine kulies of land; old survey No. 46-C was among the properties thus divided by them. And in that partition Valliammai got the western half of this survey number, while Meenakshiayi, defendant 5 in the suit, got the eastern half of this survey number. Valliammai alienated the western half of survey No. 46-C to the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title from whom the plaintiff purchased the same. Valliammai died in 1916. The plaintiff as purchaser of Valliammai s right, in the western moiety of survey No. 46-C, instituted the original suit for possession of the same from defendants 1 to 4 who were let into possession by the plaintiffs vendor. Defendant 5, Meenakshiayi, put forward her right to possession of the western half on the death of her co-widow. Valliammai, and she executed a lease deed in favour of defendant 1 in respect of the said western portion.

2. The dispute between the parties centered on the question whether on the death of Valliammai, defendant 5 was entitled to possession of the suit properties. This again depended on the question as to the exact effect of the oral partition entered into between the two widows, Valliammai and defendant 5 in or about 1894.

3. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, holding that it was not proved to his satisfaction that Valliammai and defendant 5 divided their husbands properties with absolute right of ownership and precluding the rights of survivorship inter se.

4. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge disagreed with the finding of the District Munsif, and came to the conclusion that the two widows orally divided their husbands properties with absolute rights as against each and that therefore defendant 5 had relinquished her right of survivorship by the said partition.

5. He accordingly reversed the District Munsifs decree and granted a decree in the plaintiffs favour and directed the defendant to surrender 46-C.

6. Defendant 5, the co-widow, has preferred the second appeal.

7. On her behalf it was contended by the learned advocate Mr. Patanjali Sastri, that having regard to the admitted fact that the partition between the two co-widows was an oral one, and having regard to the statement in the 8th Edn. of 1914 of Maynes Hindu Law, para. 554 at p. 777 to the effect:

Where several widows hold an estate jointly, or whether one holds as manager for the others, each has a right to her proportionate share of the produce of the properties, and of the benefits derivable from its enjoyment and the widows may be placed in possession of separate portions of the properties, either by agreement among themselves or by decree of Court.... But no partition can be effected between them, whether by consent or by adverse decree, which would convert the joint estate into an estate in severalty, and put an end to the eight of survivorship, it must be taken to be clear that the oral partition of 1894 between the co-widows must be taken to be one merely for convenient management and that no idea of giving up right of survivorship ever entered into the minds of the parties at that time. Before considering this argument of the appellant, it would be convenient to examine the reasons given by the lower Courts for arriving at the findings. Issue 3 framed in the suit was whether Valliammai and defendant 5 divided their husbands properties with absolute rights of ownership and if so whether such a division is valid in law.

8. In considering this issue the District Munsif observed as follows the first point for determination is whether at the partition between Valliammai and defendant 5, the latter consented to give up her rights of su