Judgment :- 1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit (O.S. No. 737 of 1122) for partition before the Attingal Munsiff 's Court. Plaintiff 2 as the assignee from plaintiff 1 of her share in the three plaint schedule items was given a preliminary decree for a partition and delivery to her of a one tenth share in them According to the plaintiffs as one of the two surviving sisters of one Cecily Pereira plaintiff 1 was entitled to a one-half share. The contesting defendants, defendants 12 and 14 claimed to have obtained the entire rights in the properties from the brothers of the deceased Cecily and from the latter's husband. According to them the brothers were the sole heirs of Cecily and they had also obtained a surrender of whatever rights Cecily's husband had in the properties. The learned Munsiff found the claims advanced by either side to be unsustainable and held that under the law governing the parties the husband of the deceased woman was entitled absolutely to a one-half share of her properties and that her two surviving sisters (Plaintiff 1 and defendant 2) and her three brothers were entitled to share the remaining half share equally. Defendant 3 was one of the brothers, the husband of defendant 5 and the father of defendants 4, 6 and 7 another and the father of defendants 8 to 10 the third. Defendant, 12 died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 15 to 19 were brought on record as legal heirs. Plaintiff 2 was dissatisfied with the Munsiff's decree awarding him only a one-tenth share and preferred A. S. No. 536 of 1954 before the Attingal Sub-Court seeking to enhance his share into one-half as claimed in the plaint. Defendant 14 or the legal heirs of defendant 12 did not either prefer any appeal of their own or any cross-objection in the appeal preferred by plaintiff 2. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal & modified the preliminary decree of the Munsiff by enhancing the share of plaintiff 2 to one-half. Defendants 14 to 19 have brought this Second Appeal against the decree passed in the appeal. 2. The learned Single Judge before whom this Second Appeal came up for hearing referred it for decision to a Division Bench and the Division Bench in its turn referred it for decision to a Full Bench. Defendants 14 to 19 have brought this Second Appeal against the decree passed in the appeal. 2. The learned Single Judge before whom this Second Appeal came up for hearing referred it for decision to a Division Bench and the Division Bench in its turn referred it for decision to a Full Bench. The two reference orders state that the decision of the Second Appeal involved the true construction of S.30 of the Travancore Christian Succession Act (Act II of 1092) & as there was no decision bearing on the question it was considered desirable to have an authoritative pronouncement of a Full Bench about it. We however feel handicapped in giving such a decision as, there is no appearance before us on behalf of the respondent. No doubt Mr. G. Viswanatha Iyer who appeared on behalf of the appellant placed all the relevant aspects of the case before us and we also got some assistance from Mr. T.K: Kurian who at our instance appeared in the case as amicus curiae All the same we consider it advisable to be content with giving a decision to the parties in the case and not to attempt to lay down the law as envisaged by the referring orders. That can more appropriately be done on an occasion when the matter is fully thrashed out at the Bar. 3. The lower courts as also the parties proceeded on the basis that Cicely Pereira died childless leaving behind her husband, three brothers and two sisters. The extreme contentions that the sisters excluded the brothers from inheritance and vice versa were found against by the trial court and both sides submitted to those findings before the appellate court The learned Munsiff found that the husband who had survived Cecily was entitled absolutely to a one-half share in her properties, but the learned Subordinate Judge negatived that view and held that he had only a life interest over a one-half share. The husband was dead before the suit was brought. The Subordinate Judge therefore held that the two sisters and three brothers of Cecily inherited her properties in equal shares, that is, one-fifth each. The question for decision is whether that view is correct. 4. We are afraid that the learned Subordinate Judge's view is wrong. The husband was dead before the suit was brought. The Subordinate Judge therefore held that the two sisters and three brothers of Cecily inherited her properties in equal shares, that is, one-fifth each. The question for decision is whether that view is correct. 4. We are afraid that the learned Subordinate Judge's view is wrong. S.17 and 19 of the Christian Succession Act read together show that the husband is a legal heir of his deceased wife and that he would be entitled to a one-half share of the wife's properties. S.25 prescribes that the residue will be divided among the heirs of the different groups mentioned there according to the preference laid down in the section. The limitation that the wife or the husband inheriting the other spouse's properties shall only have a life interest is provided in S.24, but that section is by S.30 specifically not made applicable to the community to which the parties belong, namely, Roman Catholic Christians of the Latin Rite inhabiting the taluks mentioned in the section. The parties to this litigation belong to Chirayinkil. While the husband was therefore entitled absolutely to a one-half share the other half share alone devolved on the other heirs, namely, the three brothers and the two sisters. The Munsiff was therefore right in holding that the second plaintiff would only get a one-tenth share of the plaint schedule properties. Setting aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge enhancing the share of plaintiff 2 to a half share we restore the Munsiff's decree awarding him a one-tenth share. 5. The Munsiff had left the question of mesne profits for determination to the final decree stage and he directed that in effecting the division the house in item 3 and the improvements in that item after 1114 will be excluded. The Subordinate Judge modified the direction regarding the house by holding that whether the house was an improvement effected by the alienees should be determined at the stage of the final decree. We consider that a just and equitable direction and except for this modification the Munsiff's decree will stand restored in other respects as well. Parties will bear their costs in all the three courts. 6. During the course of the arguments Mr. Viswanatha Iyer stated that his clients had also acquired the interest of defendant 2, one of the surviving sisters of the deceased Cecily. Parties will bear their costs in all the three courts. 6. During the course of the arguments Mr. Viswanatha Iyer stated that his clients had also acquired the interest of defendant 2, one of the surviving sisters of the deceased Cecily. Our attention was not invited to any document evidencing that transfer. We do not therefore make any pronouncement about it. The appellants are in possession of the entire properties and plaintiff 2 will get her one-tenth share divided by metes and bounds together with mesne profits by the final decree to be passed in the suit. If any other party is entitled to any other share it is up to him or her, as the case may be, to take appropriate action before the court of first instance. 7. The memorandum of objections preferred by the first respondent is dismissed.