JUDGMENT : MATHEW MURICKEN, J. 1. Appellant is defendant No. 1 in O.S. 313 of 1119 of Ernakulam Munsiff’s Court. The suit is for partition of 2x16 dhandus of land lying in the middle of Survey No. 504/3. The gist of plaintiff’s case is as follows: Survey No. 504/3 belonged to one Narasinga Pai. He had three sons, Vamana Pai, Subba Pai, and Venkiteswara Pai. In 1083 Venkiteswara Pai died leaving a widow Lekshmi Bhai. On the death of Venkiteswara Pai Survey No. 504/3 was divided into 3 plots. The western plot measuring 10¼x16 dhandus was allotted to Subba Pai and the eastern portion measuring 10¼x16 dhandus was allotted to Vamana Pai. The middle portion 2x16 dhandus was put in the possession of Lekshmi Bhai, the widow of Venkiteswara Pai for her subsistence on the understanding that it will be divided equally between Subba Pai and Vamana Pai on the death of Lekshmi Bhai. Lekshmi Bhai died in 1093 and ever since the plaint property was in the joint possession of the two branches. Vamana Pai died in 1088 and Subba Pai died in 1104. Plaintiff No. 1 is the son of Vamana Pai and plaintiff’s Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of plaintiff No. 1. They sue for their half share in the plaint property with mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 20/-. 2. Defendants 1, 2, 4, 8, 13 and 7 contest the suit. Defendant No.1 is the purchaser of 20¼ cents of land out of Survey No. 504/3 from Subba Pai’s branch under Ext. IV dated 3.12.1118. Defendants Nos. 2 and 4 are the sons of Subba Pai. Defendant No. 5 is the son of defendant No. 4. Defendants Nos. 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 are the children of one Anantha Pai a deceased son of Subba Pai. Defendant No. 8 is the wife of the said Anantha Pai and defendant No. 13 is the wife of Subba Pai. Defendant No. 5 is the son of defendant No. 4. Defendants Nos. 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 are the children of one Anantha Pai a deceased son of Subba Pai. Defendant No. 8 is the wife of the said Anantha Pai and defendant No. 13 is the wife of Subba Pai. Defendants contend among other things that the three-fold division of Survey No. 504/3 alleged by the plaintiff is not true, that the division was into 2 plots that the eastern portion measuring 10¼x16 dhandus was allotted to Vamana Pai, that the rest of the property was allotted to Subba Pai, that the widow of Venkiteswara Pai was not given possession of 2x16 dhandus of land in the middle of Survey No. 504/3, that no portion of Survey No. 504/3 was ever in the joint possession of the 2 branches and that even if plaintiffs had any title to the plaint property it is lost by adverse possession. 3. The trial court repelled the defence plea and found that the three-fold division of 1083 alleged by plaintiffs is true, that plaintiffs are entitled to a half share in the plaint property under the arrangement of 1083 and that the suit is not barred by adverse possession. In appeal by the 1st defendant a new point that “even if the three-fold division is accepted plaintiffs are not entitled to a share in the plaint property” was also raised. The appellate court confirmed all the findings of the trial court and repelled the new plea raised by the 1st defendant. Hence this second appeal by the 1st defendant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the courts below erred in accepting plaintiff’s case of three-fold division and that even if the three-fold division is accepted plaintiffs are not entitled to sue for a partition. In support of the 1st contention the counsel strenuously argues that the courts below have misread and misunderstood material documents in the case and that this error has led the lower courts to wrong conclusions. He has also filed 3 fresh documents and they are maked Exts. XII, XIII and XIV. * * * * * 5. The oral evidence in the case also supports plaintiff’s version. P.W. 1 speaks about the three-fold division, P.Ws. 5 and 6 (plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2) corroborate his evidence. No valid grounds are made out to discredit them. He has also filed 3 fresh documents and they are maked Exts. XII, XIII and XIV. * * * * * 5. The oral evidence in the case also supports plaintiff’s version. P.W. 1 speaks about the three-fold division, P.Ws. 5 and 6 (plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2) corroborate his evidence. No valid grounds are made out to discredit them. We accept their evidence, and in addition to the documentary and oral evidence there are a few telling circumstances which lend further support to plaintiff’s case. 6. An unequal division is an exception and there must be some convincing explanation for it. The evidence on record does not disclose any such explanation. From Ext. B which we have accepted we find that Subba Pai and Vamana Pai had to pay tax in equal shares. The circumstance that the widow who was put in possession of a portion of the property was not burdened with the payment of tax also leads us to the conclusion that that area was treated as common. The widow is legally entitled to maintenance and it is unlikely that a division would be effected without making a provision for her maintenance. All things considered we unhesitatingly hold that the three-fold division of 1083 alleged by plaintiffs is true, that under that arrangement Venkiteswara Pai’s widow was left in possession of 2x16 dhandus of land in the middle of Survey No. 504/3 on the understanding that it will be divided on her death between the branches of Vamana Pai and Subba Pai. 7. The next point raised by the counsel for the appellant is that even if the three-fold division is accepted the property left in the possession of the widow constitutes widow’s estate, that on her death in 1093 it passes to Subba Pai her husband’s heir at the time and that any prior agreement to the contrary is invalid and unenforceable. There is no such contention in the written statement of defendant No. 1. Even in the memorandum of appeal by defendant No. 1 in the lower court such a plea is not raised. All the same, the point having been raised by the counsel for the appellant the lower court has recorded a finding on it. We do not therefore wish to rule out the plea. Even in the memorandum of appeal by defendant No. 1 in the lower court such a plea is not raised. All the same, the point having been raised by the counsel for the appellant the lower court has recorded a finding on it. We do not therefore wish to rule out the plea. In support of his contention the counsel for the appellant relies on the Privy Council decision in Debi Mangal Prasad Singh v. Mahadeva Prasad Singh, I.L.R. 34 All. at 234, and a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Munni Lal v. Mt. Phula, A.I.R. 1927 All. 679 at 681. In Debi Mangal Prasad Singh v. Mahadeva Prasad Singh, I.L.R. 34 All. at 234 it was held that the share which the mother in a joint Hindu family obtains after the death of the father on partition between the mother and the sons, is not her stridhanam but is given for her maintenance and on her death it devolves upon the heirs of her husband and not upon her own heirs. The decision is followed by the Allahabad High Court in Munni Lal v. Mt. Phula, A.I.R. 1927 All. 679 at 681, referred to above. We have therefore to see whether the allotment of plaint property to widow Lekshmi Bhai partakes of the character of a widow’s estate. In Hindu Law by Mulla 1946 at page 168 we find widow’s estate defined:- “The estate taken by a Hindu widow in property inherited by her from her husband is called widow’s estate or women’s estate.” 8. The estate taken by every other limited heir is similar in its incidents to a widow’s estate. In the case before us, Lekshmi Bhai is the widow of a deceased brother of Vamana Pai and Subba Pai. She does not come into possession of plaint property by way of inheritance from her husband. Therefore the property in her possession does not constitute widow’s estate properly so called. She does not also come under the category of limited heirs and the allotment made for her maintenance does not constitute a widow’s estate. We have also found on evidence that the allotment was not an absolute allotment. In the two cases cited by the counsel for the appellant the allotment for maintenance was in favour of widowed mother who is an heir. We have also found on evidence that the allotment was not an absolute allotment. In the two cases cited by the counsel for the appellant the allotment for maintenance was in favour of widowed mother who is an heir. It is also seen that the allotments for maintenance in these cases were absolute. We therefore hold that the decisions in Debi Mangal Prasad Singh v. Mahadeva Prasad Singh and Munni Lal v. Mt. Phula do not apply to the facts of the case and the allotment to widow Lekshmi Bhai does not create a widow’s estate. If that be so, the agreement between the parties at the time of the division in 1093, that on the death of the widow the property left in her possession will be divided is not repugnant in law. In Musammat Bhagunai Kunwar v. Mohan Singh, 88 Ind. Cases 385 at 386 the Privy Council observes that a widow of a sonless member of a joint Hindu family is sometimes allowed by the family to occupy possession of one of the family’s land for her life for maintenance and in such cases she takes not in any right of hers as the co-parcener’s widow. There is thus nothing anomalous in the arrangement set up by plaintiffs. 9. We therefore hold that the plaint property set apart for the maintenance of widow Lekshmi Bhai was left in common on the understanding that it will be divided between the branches of Vamana Pai and Subba Pai on her death and that it is therefore partible. Plaintiff’s suit therefore succeeds. For the reasons stated above the second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Govinda Menon, J.:- I agree. Appeal dismissed