Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.

1. These are three linked appeals, namely, Appeal No. 411 of 1925, Appeal No. 439 of 1925 and Appeal No. 6 of 1926. Of these, Appeal No. 439 of 1925 was argued first as in that the main and the most important contentions between the parties had to be considered, I propose in my judgment to deal with all the three appeals together.

2. All these appeals arise out of O.S. No. 67 of 1919 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. That was a suit for partition. The parties to the suit were all members of an undivided Hindu family related to one another in the manner set out in schedule A to the plaint. The Hindu family was possessed of considerable immovable property and in the partition suit the plaintiff claimed a half share in the whole property. The plaintiff stands by himself representing one branch of the family. The genealogical table (schedule A) shows that all the parties to the suit trace their descent back to one Sepperumal Odayar; and in the judgment of my learned brother Curgenven, J., the genealogical table has been described in detail and therefore it is unnecessary for me to explain any further he w the parties stand in relationship to one another.

2. In the Court below a preliminary decree was passed by means of which the plaintiff was given one-fifth share, defendants Nos. 3,4,5, 7 and 8 one-fifth share, the 6th defendant one-fifth share, the 9th defendant one-fifth share, and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 one-fifth share. The learned Subordinate Judge gave a decree for an account and also directed that the accounting was to be upon the basis of an undivided family although he found that the family had become divided in status by reason of document Ex. A. This document has been the cause of all the trouble in the suit. Various constructions have been placed, upon it by the contending parties both here and in the Court below and these appeals depend entirely upon what view we take of that document. In order that it can be better understood we have to go back to the year 1895. Exhibit A is dated the 25th November of that year and is described as a deed of partition. On that date there were alive Muthu Odayar who died in 1903, Balasubramania Odayar who died since the suit was filed, Singaravelu Odayar who died in 1917, Somasundara Odayar his son who subsequently died leaving a widow the 10th defendant, Sivaswami Odayar who died in 1909 leaving a widow the 9th defendant, Gopalaswami Odayar and Siva Vadivelu Odayar the grandson of Sinnu Odayar and the adopted son of Sendalangara Odayar who was himself the son of Sinnu Odayar, the son of Sepperumal Odayar the common ancestor. By this deed Balasubrahmanya Odayar separated himself from the rest of the family and under Clause 1 of the deed it was agreed that he should take one-fifth share of the whole property the remaining four-fifths share being agreed to be allotted in five equal shares to (1) Singaravelu Odayar and Somasundara Odayar, (2) Sivaswami Odayar, (3) Gopalaswami Odayar and Vijia Raghunathan, (4) Balaguruswami and Balakrishnaswami and (5) Siva Vadivelu the adoptive father of the plaintiff--I describe him as the adoptive father of the plaintiff because in Ex. A his adoption is recognized and the learned Judge in the Court below has found that adoption proved. The consideration for this document is set out in the preamble to it and is stated to be the fact that disputes might arise in the family in connection with the partition and heavy loss might be sustained thereby, that Samu Odayar and his father Ramu Odayar (Nos. 4 and 11 in the genealogical table) had acquired properties by bard work and brought the family to a very prosperous condition and the natural affection towards his heirs, namely, Singaravelu Odayar, Sivaswami Odayar, Gopalaswami Odayar, Balaguruswami and Balakrishnaswami and also towards Balasubrahmanya. Under Clause 6 of the document Muthu Odayar gave away his share in the family properties as he had no