JUDGMENT : There are three branches in a Malayala Brahmin illom, the plaintiffs being members of one branch, defendants 1 to 5 belonging to the second branch and the sixth defendant being a member of the third branch. The suit out of which this Second Appeal arises, was instituted by the plaintiffs, for an allotment for their maintenance, claiming 13/22 of the illom properties. Defendants 1 to 5 had filed O.S. 3 of 1107 for maintenance of the members of their branch and obtained a decree Ext. V, in pursuance of which, items 1 and 9 or portions thereof were allotted to them. The sixth defendant has similarly sued for maintenance and obtained a decree in O.S. 1051 of 1108, though that decree had not been executed. In the present suit, defendants 1 to 5 set up Ext. V decree as a bar and pleaded, that the arrangement for maintenance under that decree could not be altered. The two Courts have over-ruled this contention and granted a preliminary decree for effecting an allotment of maintenance for the plaintiffs”, on a proper division of the illom properties by the issue of a commission. 2. In this Second Appeal by defendants 1 to 5, the contention has been repeated by their learned counsel, that in any view, the possession of defendants 1 to 5 of the portions of items 1 and 9 cannot be disturbed. This was stated to be on the principle contended for, that once maintenance is decreed by a court to a member of the family, it is not liable to alteration even on changed conditions and circumstances. I find myself wholly unable to subscribe to this proposition. As observed in Krishnan Damodaran v. Narayanan Kumaran [1951 KLT. 424), the liability to revision is the hall-mark of a maintenance arrangement and in my opinion, this is applicable, at least to some extent to a decree for maintenance. It has been ruled in an early case by the Travancore High Court in Parameswaran Narayanan Bhattathiri v. Parameswaran Savithri Antharjanom (31 TLR. 117), that a decree in a maintenance suit is not final in the sense, that the rate once fixed by it, cannot be altered under any circumstance. This rule has been affirmed by a later decision of the same High Court in Shanmugasundaram Maistry Neelacanten v. Palayasam Nallayadivu (3 TLT. 839). 117), that a decree in a maintenance suit is not final in the sense, that the rate once fixed by it, cannot be altered under any circumstance. This rule has been affirmed by a later decision of the same High Court in Shanmugasundaram Maistry Neelacanten v. Palayasam Nallayadivu (3 TLT. 839). Mulla on Hindu Law, 12th Edition, page 719 observes: “The amount of maintenance, whether it is fixed by a decree or by agreement, is liable to be increased or diminished, whenever there is such a change of circumstances as would justify a change in the rate’. If the rate of maintenance fixed under a decree is liable to variation, I fail to see, how an allotment of property for maintenance under a decree, cannot be varied when circumstances are established, which render such variation necessary or proper. The learned counsel relied on the absence of a provision in the Civil Procedure Code for re-opening a decree in this manner, but I do not understand the previous decree to declare, that whatever happens in the family in the future, the same rate of maintenance shall continue for all time to come. S. 25 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which specifically empowers Courts to effect alterations in such decrees according to changed circumstances, is in my opinion, a statutory recognition and not a conferment, of such power to be exercised in proper cases; the authorities cited above confirm this view. Now the effect of the decree under appeal to which defendants 1 to 5 are parties, is to bring about a change in the allotment already made, to suit the altered condition of the family. The courts below have considered that the circumstances of the family have changed; at the time O.S. 3 of 1107 was decided, there were only two members in the branch of the plaintiffs, while now there are 13 and the total membership of the illom has increased from 17 to 22, though membership in the branch of defendants 1 to 5 has remained constant. The courts below were satisfied, that a change in the maintenance allotment must be made, but in doing so, they cannot ignore the right of defendants 1 to 5 altogether. The courts below were satisfied, that a change in the maintenance allotment must be made, but in doing so, they cannot ignore the right of defendants 1 to 5 altogether. I consider that in bringing about an allotment for maintenance by the issue of a commission, the right to maintenance of defendants 1 to 5 also must be kept in view, and their possession of portions of items 1 & 9 can be disturbed, only to the extent necessary, in order to give relief to the plaintiffs. Subject to the above observations, this Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.