A widow is entitled to partition of her share in the property, but her share will be limited to her lifetime. After her death, the property will revert to the son.

S. BARMAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is the plaintiff's second appeal from a decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge Cuttack reversing a decision of the learned Munsif of Kendrapara in a suit for partition and mesne profits filed by the plaintiff against the defendant-respondent.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff was a widow of one Jagu Das (deceased), his other widow having been one Palini Bewa (deceased ). The defendant-respondent Dadhi Das was an adopted son of the deceased Jagu Das. In 1923 the son Dahi Das filed a suit, -- being Title Suit No. 244 of 1923 against the said two widows and eleven other defendants having been the transferees from the widow in respect of certain properties, -- for a declaration that the plaintiff in the said suit (Dadhi Das) was the adopted son of deceased Jagu Das and that he was entitled to the said properties being 10 acres 45 decimals mentioned in schedule Ka to Una in the plaint therein and further that the son Dadhi Das was not bound by the alienation made by the widows. In June 1924 the said Title Suit No. 244 of 1923 was compromised between the parties. One of the terms of the said compromise was that the son Dadhi Das was to have -/8/- share and the widows -/8/- share on certain conditions as fully stated in the compromise decree. I shall deal with the said compromise decree hereinafter at the appropriate stage. In 1939, the son Dadhi Das again filed a suit being Title Suit No. 186 of 1939 against the said widows; and the superior landlord under whom they were holding the properties was aisp made a defendant as defendant No. 3. The reliefs prayed for in the said suit were for declaration that the widows had no right to the properties in the said suit, that the record of rights showing the widows as rayats was a mistake and that the son was himself the rayat. On April 1, 1940, the said title suit No. 186 of 1939 was decreed on contest against the widows in favour of the son. By the said decree (Ext. 2), the title of the son was declared over the lands in suit and his possession was confirmed and it was further declared that the widows "are entitled to hold half of the property in lieu of their maintenance. " It was also declared that the son was an occupancy tenant in respect of the lands in suit under the landlord defendant No. 3 and not an under-rayat under the widows. In 1946, the widow Paluni Bewa died. In 1951 the surviving widow the plaintiff Mali Bewa filed the present suit No. 283 of 1951 against the son for partition and mesne profits. The son in his written statement took the defence that his title to the entire property was by compromise declared in the previous suit and that the widows including the plaintiff Mali Bewa were only entitled to maintenance. Alternatively, the son contended that the other widow Paiuni Bewa having died, her four annas interest devolved on him and that the surviving widow the plaintiff Mali Bewa was entitled to four annas interest only. In his judgment dated November 4, 1952, the learned Munsif decreed the suit against the son and held that Mali Bewa is entitled to partition by metes and bounds and declared the respective shares of the parties as mentioned in the said judgment. The son filed an appeal being Title Appeal No. 252 of 1952. On August 26, 1954, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the decree for partition and remitted the suit back for retrial for reconsideration of the issue relating to partition with reference to the pleadings and the petition of compromise decree in Title suit No. 186 of 1939. Incidentally, the learned Additional District Judge obviously by mistake gave a wrong number to the compromise decree because the only compromise decree in this connection was the Title suit No. 244 of 1923 as aforesaid and not in Title Suit No. 186 of 1939 as incorrectly stated by the learned Additional District Judge in his judgment. This mistake however caused some confusion. After remand by the learned Additional Dis