( 1 ) IN this appeal directed against a preliminary decree for partition of properties belonging to an aliyasanthana family of South Kanara District, the only challenge is against the findings on issues 4 and 5 framed by the trial Court. Both of them arise out of the notice issued before suit and the claims relatable thereto. ( 2 ) THE common ancestress of the parties was one Venkamma. She had two daughters Pammakke and Somakke. Pammakke's daughter's son munda Shetty was the last nissanthathi Kavaru descended from the elder daughter Pammakke. The younger daughter Somakke had 4 children of whom 2 were females. The elder Chandakke's descendents are the defendants in this suit. The survivors among them now constitute 3 santhathi kavarus and one nissanthathi kavaru; it also appears that by reason of there being female descendants of the heads of the santhathi kavaru, there are 2 further sub-kavarus. Venkamma's children 7 in number constituting one santhathi kavaru are the plaintifls. ( 3 ) THE suit notice claiming partition Ext. A-4 dated 15-11-1949 was issued by lawyer on behalf of 2 kavarus, namely, the plaintiffs and Munda shetty above mentioned, the great grandson of the common ancestress. Out of them, Munda Shetty died on 12th April 1960 before the institution of the suit. The plaint dated 31-10-1961 was actually presented on 23-11-1961. The plaintiffs claimed that by reason of the claim put forward in Ext. A-4 themselves as well as the deceased Munda Shetty constituting a separate nissanthathi kavaru, were entitled to be allotted one joint share and that because severance had already taken place on the date of service of the notice the death of Munda Shetty subseqent to the said date did not take his share away from the kavaru of the plaintiffs. This contention was opposed by the defendants. The nature of the controversy is reflected in issues 4 and 5 which read as follows:"4. Whether the notice dated 15-11-49 issued on behalf of the plaintiffs and deceased Mundappa Shetty is valid and effects division of status? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim the share of deceased mundappa Shetty? "both were found in favour of the plaintiffs. ( 4 ) THE argument on behalf of the appellants rests almost exclusively on the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of S. 35 of the Madras Aliyasanthana act, 1949. 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim the share of deceased mundappa Shetty? "both were found in favour of the plaintiffs. ( 4 ) THE argument on behalf of the appellants rests almost exclusively on the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of S. 35 of the Madras Aliyasanthana act, 1949. That is the provision which for the first time conferred the right to claim partition departing from the preexisting customary law according to which no partition was possible except with the consent of all the sharers. That sub-section reads:"any Kavaru represented by the majority of its major members may claim to take its share of all the properties of the kutumba over which the kutumba has power of disposal and separate from the kutumba. "subsequent provisions made for the division of the properties for purposes of partition also indicate that the ascertainment and allotment of shares is by kavarus and not otherwise. ( 5 ) IT was therefore argued that as the right to demand partition is exclusively the right conferred by the statute it is not capable of being exercised except in accordance with the express provisions of the statute; because the said right is conferred upon a kavaru and because the allotments by way of partition in the case of partition are also by kavarus, it is not permissible, according to the argument, for two or more kavarus to join together and to ask for allotment of a joint share. ( 6 ) THIS argument was met in the court below by the plaintiffs by suggesting that the general rule that singular includes plural is applicable to the interpretation of sub-sec. (1) of S. 35 of the Aliyasanthana Act and also on the ground that in certain cases decided by the Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court the result flowing from a partition of some of the members of the aliyasanthana kavaru or a marumakathayam tavazhi parting away, leaving only some members still remaining in jointness was accepted as correct and in accordance with the principles of law. Both these answers were accepted by the trial Court as correct. ( 7 ) IT appears to us that neither of these arguments can be regarded as sound or acceptable. So far as the decided cases are concerned, it is clear that they dealt with cases of partition by consent of all the parties. Both these answers were accepted by the trial Court as correct. ( 7 ) IT appears to us that neither of these arguments can be regarded as sound or acceptable. So far as the decided cases are concerned, it is clear that they dealt with cases of partition by consent of all the parties. That position is not affected by the scheme of partition created by the statute. The fact that a certain result can be brought about by consent of all the parties interested in the properties, is no argument to support a departure from the statute when rights are claimed under the statute and sought to be enforced in enforcement of the provisions of the statute. ( 8 ) THE rule of interpretation that singular includes plural is patently inapplicable to section 35 (1) of the Aliyasanthana Act for the simple reason that the scheme of partition is by kavarus and the right to demand partition is expressly conferred on a kavaru. ( 9 ) DISAGREEING with the trial court, we hold therefore that it is not permissible under S. 35 (1) of the Madras Aliyasanthana Act to demand allotment of a joint share to two or more kavarus jointly. ( 10 ) THIS opinion does not, however, necessarily lead to the acceptance of the further contention of the appellants that the notice Ext. A-4 itself is totally invalid. For one thing, If it is possible to regard the claim made in the notice in a manner which is lawful and is in accordance with the provisions of the statute, courts should give that interpretation to the notice. Secondly, the language of the notice or the manner in which the claim is formulated leaves no room for doubt that although the notice was issued on behalf of two kavarus the claim was not for a joint share. The general claim is that the persons on whose behalf notice was sent claimed partition in accordance with the terms of the Aliyasanthana Act. The claim for payment to them of income or profits in family properties is also made separately for Munda Shetty and for the kavaru of the plaintiffs. The general claim is that the persons on whose behalf notice was sent claimed partition in accordance with the terms of the Aliyasanthana Act. The claim for payment to them of income or profits in family properties is also made separately for Munda Shetty and for the kavaru of the plaintiffs. ( 11 ) WE hold therefore that the notice is valid and is sufficient to bring about a severance in status, but that the claim in the notice is not for allotment of a joint share to Munda Shetty and the plaintiffs jointly but for two separate allotments of one share to Munda Shetty and another to the kavaru of the plaintiffs ascertained in accordance with the terms of the Madras Aliyasanthana Act. ( 12 ) HENCE though we do not accept the reasoning adopted by the trial Judge, we confirm his findings on issue No. 4 for the reasons discussed above. ( 13 ) THE same reasons make it necessary to set aside his finding on the 5th issue under which he has allotted to the plaintiffs themselves the share which was allotable to Munda Shetty had he been alive. That finding is of course wrong and is hereby set aside. ( 14 ) THE trial court will now proceed to amend its finding as to the extent of the shares by deleting from what he has allotted to the plaintiffs' the share attributable to deceased Munda Shetty and distributing the same among santhathi kavarus, whom he finds to be nearest in degree to Munda shetty in accordance with sub-sec. (5) of S. 36 of the Madras aliyasanthana Act. In other respects, the decree of the lower court is not interfered with. ( 15 ) THE costs of the parties in this appeal will come out of the estate. The lawyer's fee in each set will be Rs. 250. 00. --- *** --- .