The ruling confirms that Nissanthathi Kavaru's life interest under the Aliyasantana Act does not automatically convert to an absolute estate upon death, reaffirming prevailing laws on succession and partition.

JUDGMENT

(1) Are the provisions contained in Section 36 of the Madras Aliyasantana Act , 1949 inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Hindu succession Act, 1956?

(2) Does Section 30 of the Hindu succession Act, 1956, enlarge the scope of Section 7 (2) of the said Act?

(3) Can the share allotted to a Nissanthathi Kavaru male be inherited by his natural heirs on his death?

(4) What are the eventualities wherein the limited estate of life interest of a Nissanthathi Kavaru, over the properties allotted to it in partition of the Kutumba properties, become an absolute estate?

(5) Can persons belong to Santhathi Kavarus of the Kutumba, who are in possession of the properties allotted to Nissanthathi Kavaru male in partition of the Kutumba properties on his death, be thrown out through a decree of mandatory injunction?

These are the main questions to be answered in this Regular Second Appeal.

2. O.S.No.117/2010 of Principal Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod was filed as a simple suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants, their men and agents and all other persons claiming under them to discontinue the management and to surrender and restore actual possession of A schedule properties to the plaintiffs and also for submitting true and correct accounts for the income and expenses in respect of the plaint A schedule properties. A relief for directing the defendants to pay future income of the properties was also sought for.

3. Plaint A schedule properties are the B share in the final decree for partition in R.I.A. No.87/1957 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kasaragod which was originally R.I.A. No.1530/1952 in O.S.No.228/49 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mangalore. According to the plaintiffs, plaint A schedule properties were allotted to the exclusive and absolute share of the Nissanthathi Kavaru of late Aithappa Bhandary, as per the Madras Aliyasantana Act , 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Aliyasantana Act']. Aithappa Bhandary was the first defendant in the suit and the first respondent in the final decree. He died on 23.08.1963. He was in absolute possession and enjoyment of plaint A schedule properties till his death.

4. The first plaintiff is the son, plaintiffs 7 and 8 are daughters, and plaintiffs 2 to 6 are the children of the daughters of late Aithappa Bhandary, who are his legal heirs as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act , 1956. Plaintiffs are residing away from the plaint A schedule properties. According to the plaintiffs, therefore, they had entrusted the plaint A schedule properties to the first defendant and the husband of the 2^nd defendant for management, immediately after the death of Aithappa Bhandary. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the first defendant and the husband of the 2^nd defendant were mere agents under them. After the death of the husband of the 2^nd defendant, the 2^nd defendant was also managing the property along with the first defendant. They were allowed to meet the expenses for cultivation and improvements in the property, and they were directed to pay the balance income from the properties to the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, such balance income was paid by the defendants for some years only, and thereafter they avoided such payments by representing that the entire income was being spent for the cultivation and improvements in the property. They stopped the payment of any amount from the income for the last few years.

5. Plaint A schedule properties is three acres of areca garden and 2½ acres of paddy field, which could generate sizable income from coconut, arecanut, paddy etc. The plaintiffs, through Ext.A2 notice dated 04.01.2010, terminated the management of the defendants over the property, and they were called upon to submit a true and correct account for the income from plaint A schedule properties, and they were directed to surrender vacant possession of plaint A schedule properties. Ext.A2 did not evoke a positive response; on the contrary, it invited a