VENKATARAMIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and decree in OS. No. 5 of 1964 on the file of the Civil Judge, South Kanara. Padu Panambur is a village in the District of South Kanra. In that village there was a certain Dugganna Savantha governed by Aliyasanthana law. He was installed in the year 1908 as the holder of a pattam known as 'padu Panambur Pattam' in accordance with the customs governing the same. He died on 25-6 41. On 26-6-41, defendants 1 to 3 who were the sons of the said Dugganna Savantha and the present plaintiff 1 Revathiamma, were adopted by one Kempamma, sister of Dugganna Savantha. ( 2 ) ON the same day, defendant 1 was installed as the holder of the pattern in accordance with the custom of the family. Defendant 1 has continued to be the holder of the pattern since then. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the daughters of plaintiff 1. ( 3 ) THE above said Revathiamma plaintiff 1, and her two daughters, plaintiffs 2 and 3 have filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for a partition and separate possession of their half share in the properties described in schedules 'a' and 'b' attached to the plaint and also in the right of trusteeship in respect of certain properties belonging to a family trust viz. Sri Ananthanatha Devaru shown in plaint 'c' schedule and another family trust called Chandranatha Devaru shown in plaint 'd' schedule and for ether allied reliefs. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs and defendants who are Jains belong to a Kutumba governed by Aliyasanthana law and that the said Kutumba or family owns immoveable and movable properties described in plaint 'a' and 'b' schedules; they also own a 'pattam' called 'savantige Pattam of Mulki Sheeme' (hereinafter referred to as the pattam) which entitled them to receive a political pension from Government; to the trusteeship of various temples in the Mulki sheeme and to honour at marriages and such other customary occasions. Their further case is that the said pattam does not own any properties, but it is only an office of honour to which one of the members of the family is selected by the Magne Gurikars according to custom. Their further case is that the said pattam does not own any properties, but it is only an office of honour to which one of the members of the family is selected by the Magne Gurikars according to custom. It is admitted by the plaintiffs that defendant 1 is holding the pattam and by reason of his assumption of that office, he is called Chennaraya Savantha. ( 4 ) IT is further pleaded that plaintiff 1 and defendants 1 to 3 having been adopted by Kempamma, the sole surviving member of the family on the death of Dugganna Savantha referred to above, became members of a kutumba consisting of Kempamma, plaintiff 1 and defendants 1 to 3, plaintiffs 2 and 3 being the daughters of plaintiff 1 also are members of the said kutumba. In view of the fact that on the date of the suit there were six members in the family, namely, plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3, the plaintiffs claim that thev are together entitled to a half share in the properties belonging to the kutumba referred to above. ( 5 ) DEFENDANT 1 in his written statement denied that plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 belonged to an undivided kutumb governed by Aliyasanthana law. He pleaded that the properties described in the schedules attached to the plaint and trusteeship of the two trusts referred to above did not belong to the kutumba consisting of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to him, the said properties appertain to the pattam and vest in the savantha who holds the pattam for the time being. In the course of his written statement, defendant 1 has briefly referred to the history of the pattam as follows:"the occupant of the pattam long long ago was a chieftain exercising powers of governance over an area called Mulki Sheeme consisting of 9 Maganes with his seat in Padupanambur village where his palace existed. In course of time with the annexation of territories, the Savanthas lost only their ruling powers with a pension but continued to enjoy the properties appertaining to the Pattam and the pattamdar thereafter became a mere dignitary with certain secular and religious rights and duties. In course of time with the annexation of territories, the Savanthas lost only their ruling powers with a pension but continued to enjoy the properties appertaining to the Pattam and the pattamdar thereafter became a mere dignitary with certain secular and religious rights and duties. The succession to this Pattam is hereditary but the heir has in be appointed to the office by the villagers or the Sheeme through the representatives of the four Bavas and eight Guthus viz. , the Aiakal Bava, Shamanthoor Bava and Pilloor parari Bava and Puttur Bava and the Guthus of Pania, Karnad, Kubeyoor, balakunde, Tahpadi, Attur, Kolnad and Thokir. The person so appointed ceases to be a member of the original Kutumba and ceases to observe pollution and other incidents naturally incident to the membership of the family He even discards the original name and chooses one of the two names Chennaraya or Duganna. This defendant submits that the appointment to the pattam involves an elaborate ceremony. Soon after the death of the pattam holder before his body is cremated the heir entitled to succeed is subjected to a shaving ceremony by the village barber who holds as (umbali) certain items of the pattam properties. Thereafter purification with sanctified kalasa water has to be performed by the village purohit. Thereafter he is conducted ceremoniously to the gadi by the gadi-holder of Puttur Bava and made to sit thereon. Then the representatives of Kasappavva's house invest him with the signet ring and the representative of Seemanthur Bava hands over the sword. After this ceremony the Pattam-holder automatically adopts one of the two names, Dugganna Savantha or Chennaraya Savantha depending upon the name of the predecessor and this is announced by the representative of Panja Guthu in the first instance and the other prominent guthus thereafter. After this, patta kanikas are offered by the assembled and they in turn receive mariyadas from the patta-holder and the investiture ceremony ends. Thereafter the representatives of the guthus and Basas request the pattamdar to cremate the body of the deceased and the cremation ceremony takes place in their presence. On the 13th day representatives of 8 Guthus and 4 Bavas undergo the purification ceremony consequent on the polution due to the death of the pattam-holder. The village barber and washerman have to be present and participate in the function. On the 13th day representatives of 8 Guthus and 4 Bavas undergo the purification ceremony consequent on the polution due to the death of the pattam-holder. The village barber and washerman have to be present and participate in the function. Thereafter the villagers report to the Government about this investiture and the Patta of the pattam properties is changed in the name of the new pattam-holder. " ( 7 ) DEFENDANT 1 proceeds to state in the written statement that he was installed as the holder of the pattam on 26-6-1941 in accordance with the customary practices narrated above and that the plaint schedule properties which were attached to the pattam became his properties from the date of his assumption of office. It is stated that the pattam-holder has only a life interest in the said properties with a beneficial interest in the income of the said properties. He has no right to alienate the properties excepting for legal necessity or benefit of the pattam. His position according to defendant 1 is that of a 'sthani' or a holder of a 'sthaanam' under the Malabar Law. He, therefore, asserts that the plaint schedule properties and the trusteeship exclusively belong to him as the holder of the pattam, and that neither the plaintiffs nor defendants 2 and 3 have any interest in them. ( 8 ) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 who filed a separate written statement in the case, supported the case of defendant 1. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed a number of issues of which two main questions for consideration were (i) whether the plaint schedule properties and the trusteeship of the temples belonged to the pattam or to a kutumba governed by Aliyasanthana Law, and (ii) whether the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 belonged to a kutumba governed by Aliyasanthana Law on the date of the suit owning the plaint schedule properties. ( 9 ) AFTER trial, on a consideration of the material before it, the lower court came to the conclusion that the entire plaint 'a' schedule properties except the one sold under Ext. A1 and the 'b' schedule properties except items 3 and 6, were the joint family properties belonging to the kutumba governed bv Aliyasanthana Law consisting of plaintiffs and defendants and that the plaintiffs had a half share in them. A1 and the 'b' schedule properties except items 3 and 6, were the joint family properties belonging to the kutumba governed bv Aliyasanthana Law consisting of plaintiffs and defendants and that the plaintiffs had a half share in them. It further declared that the plaint 'c' and 'd' schedules which were trust properties should continue to be joint in the family and that they should remain in the possesson of the pattam holder i. e. defendant 1 for the performance of poojas in the two basthies of Ananthanatha Devaru and Chendranatha devaru. The lower Court also granted the prayer of the plaintiffs for past maintenance for two years before the suit which had to be paid by defendant 1. The suit was accordingly decreed. Aggrieved by the decree of the lower Court, the defendants have filed this appeal. ( 10 ) IF being admitted on all hands that there was a pattam at Padu panambur near Mulki and that defendant-1 was the holder of the said pattam, a reference to the history of the said pattam may be necessary to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties. Sri Karanth, the learned advocate for the defendants, referred us to a passage in "statistical appendix together with a Supplement to the two District Manuals for south Kanara District" published by the Government of Madras in the year 1938 at page 393:"mulki. Population in 1931 -. vas 5,504. The old local chiefs were called Savants. Their country lay between the Mulki and Pavenje rivers and to the west of the Chowter's territory. Padubidri is on the north of the Mulki river and to the south lies Kodetur, both seats of petty ancient chieftains. The original headquarters of the Savants was Simanthur, 2 miles to the east of Mulki. It was then shifted to kotekeri in Mulki and the palace lay to the east of the basthi. There are still to be found the ruins of the old palace and the bastions of the fort built by Venkatappa Nayaka in 1608. A temple of Hanuman, a tank and a basthi are still there. There was a final shift to Olalankai later (Hale-angadi ). The palace covered over two and a half acres and now only a part of it remains and is occupied by a representative of this old family. A temple of Hanuman, a tank and a basthi are still there. There was a final shift to Olalankai later (Hale-angadi ). The palace covered over two and a half acres and now only a part of it remains and is occupied by a representative of this old family. In front of it in the field called Bakkimaru are the tombs of twenty savant chiefs which means that after the savants removed to Olalankai, there had been twenty successors in it. At the rate of 28 to 30 years for each, we can infer that this change of capital was about 600 years ago. From the 12th to the 17th centuries Olalanki must have been a big and prosperous town. The following temples were under the savants: The Janardhana temple of Simanthur, durga Parameswari temple (or Pancha-durgi temple) at Bappanadu, which is a rich institution and receives a tasdic of Rs. 900 from government besiders owning many other properties. The origin of this temple is thus accounted for. The temple was covered by the waters of the Mulki river for several years and had collapsed, but five lingams and the pedestal remained. One day while Bappu Beari a mappilla merchant was rowing his boat it struck against the lingams. and soon after the water went down and the lingams were seen and bappu Beari, though Muslim, built a small temple for housing the lingams. So the place came to be known as Pappanadu after him. There is an inscription in the front mantapam of the temple which states that Deva Raya T of Vijayanagar gave lands as endowments to it in 1411. As a result of the Inquisition at Goa in the sixteenth century several Hindu inhabitants arrived at the port of Mulki and savant chief gave them lands near the fort for their habitation and also constructed on the vacant site a temple for their worship. Then the palace of savants was at Olalankai. This is the reason for the large number of Gauda Sarasvats residing in Mulki. Their great temple to Narasimha dates from then and is a rich institution, the idol being a present from the Savanta himself; and the processon of Narasimhaswami is still being taken as far as the palace and is worshipped there during the illumination festival. This is the reason for the large number of Gauda Sarasvats residing in Mulki. Their great temple to Narasimha dates from then and is a rich institution, the idol being a present from the Savanta himself; and the processon of Narasimhaswami is still being taken as far as the palace and is worshipped there during the illumination festival. " ( 11 ) IN Volume I of Madras District Manual relating to South Canara compiled by J. Sturrock and published bv the Government of Madras in 1894 at page 189, we have a brief reference to the pattam as follows:"when the Vijayanagar power began to decline in the sixteenth century these again made a bid for independence, but were overcome by the Lingayat family of Ikkeri and Bednore who had obtained a grant of the provinces of Barkur and Mangalore from the Vijayanagar kings. The struggle between the Lingayats and Jains seems to have been fiercest in the north, where the last representative of the Bairasu wodears was in power as queen of Bhatcal, and by 1608 Venkatappa naik had nearly extirpated the Jains in the province of Barkur and had reduced to ruins all the Jain buildings in that city. Against the jain chiefs in the Mangalore province, notably Choutar of Mudibidri, bangar of Nandavar, Ajalar of Aldangadi, Mular of Bailangadi and savanta of Mulki, he was unable to make way so completely, and they retained some authority as feudatories until the time of Hyder and tippu when they were deprived of their last vestiges of power; though representatives of their families still remain in the possession of a portion of their old private lands, and some are in the enjoyment of small pensions from the British Government. " ( 12 ) FROM the passage extracted above, it is clear that the pattam referred to in the plaint is a pattam which had been in existence for over several centuries and the holder of the pattam is designated as 'savanta". According to the glossary of terms found at the end of a treatise on Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law by P. E. Sundara Aiyar published in 1922, the expression 'pattam' means: 'lit. Gadi, corresponds to stanom'. The word 'pattam' in Kannada means an office of dignity or prestige. According to the glossary of terms found at the end of a treatise on Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law by P. E. Sundara Aiyar published in 1922, the expression 'pattam' means: 'lit. Gadi, corresponds to stanom'. The word 'pattam' in Kannada means an office of dignity or prestige. It is always held bv a person to whom the people residing in the locality attached to the pattam owe allegiance, thouph not political allegiance. The holder of a pattam is charged with certain religious duties and is entitled to enjoy the propperties attached to the pattam and to receive political pension, if any, payable to the pattam. This office of pattam is peculiar to the District of South Cnnara where Aliyasathana Law is being followpd by a large number of people. Dealing with a case arising from the District of south Canara in respect of a pattam called Kulurbidu Pattam, the High court of Madras in Nagaraja. v. Devaraja Kamathaya Bellala, AIR 1922 Mad. 224 observed as follows:"the second issue raised was: whether the suit properties belonged to the Aliyasanthana family, of which the defendant is yejman, or to Kulurbidu pattam as alleged by the defendant. At the trial the plaintiff seems to have argued that though the properties belonged to the Kulurbidu pattam, the pattam itself belonged to the family and hence the properties also belonged to the family; and for this contention he relied upon the vyavasta patra, ext. A. dt. 1899 executed between the defendant and the father of the plaintiff and of the defendant who was the previous pattamdar. This document, according to the plaintiff made both the pattam and the property attached to it the family property of the plaintiff's mother's branch of their Aliyasanthana family. This pattam right has to be conferred by the Maghava villagers though they are bound by custom to bestow it upon a member of the Aliyasanthana family to which the last holder belonged, and in the non-existence of any such member they can bestow it on anybody they like. This pattam is indeed in some respects analogous to the stanam in Malabar. But from the evidence it appears that it is not (like a stanam) a mere dignity to which no obligations or duties are attached. This pattam is indeed in some respects analogous to the stanam in Malabar. But from the evidence it appears that it is not (like a stanam) a mere dignity to which no obligations or duties are attached. On the other hand the plaintiff himself in his evidence as plaintiff's witness No. 1 says "my father resigned the Kulurbidu pattam, as he could not attend to the ceremonies there, the three ceremonies I have mentioned above"; then he says in another place, " there are several ceremonies to be performed by the pattam-holders Mahalaya, Kambla and Paddarda mechinema "; then he says as regards the ' Nema' ceremony: "the nema ceremony lasts for three days. All the Maghava people have to be invited for the ceremony". It appears from the deience evidence that several other ceremonies, ashtami, Vinayaka Chaturthi and others, have also to be performed by the pattam office-holder at some expense. The villagers who installed the pattam-holder in his office have to be invited and fed or at least given cocoanuts according to the evidence. Thus whereas the stani succeeds the stanam by reason of his being the next eldest member of the family next to the deceased stanee, that is not the case with this pattam dignity which rather partakes of the nature of an office to which the vilagers appoint a man after an elaborate ceremony and the duties of which office are defined and entail expense out of the income derived from the lands forming the emoluments of the office. " ( 13 ) IN the light of the above discussion, the High Court of Madras came to the conclusion that the pattam of Kulurbidu in South Canara was a religious office. By custom the villagers had to appoint a member ot me iamily to which the last holder belonged and in the absence ol such a person, a stranger could be appointed to the office. It further held, that no junior of the pattam holder had a right to maintenance out of the income of the pattam property. Following the decision of the High Court of Madras referred to above, in another case from the District of South canara in respect of a pattam called Padubidri Pattam, this Court held in Bola Manjayya Shetty v. Shankar Balial, 1964 Mys. L. J. Supp. Following the decision of the High Court of Madras referred to above, in another case from the District of South canara in respect of a pattam called Padubidri Pattam, this Court held in Bola Manjayya Shetty v. Shankar Balial, 1964 Mys. L. J. Supp. 889 that a pattam was similar in its legal incidents to a stanam under Malabar Law and that the law governing a stanam would also govern a pattam except in regard to such matters regarding which by the customary law governing the concerned pattam, there had been variation from the incidents of a stanam. In that case the question for determination was whether the property attached to the pattam was alienable. This Court held that the custom of impartibility was a necessary attribute of the properties belonging to the pattam which at its inception was in the possession of a kind of a chieftain 'exercising sovereign or semi-sovereign powers and that the incidents of inalienability of the properties inevitably followed from the very nature of the tenure of the properties being attached to the pattam and therefore the occupant had only a life estate without having a right to alienate. In sundara Aiyar's book referred to above at page 255 it is stated as follows:"amongst the Aliyasanthana people though there are several bidus or chieftainships having substantial properties and malikanas attached to the position and questions have arisen as to the position, or powers of the holder, there is no case dealing with the matter. As to the rules of succession, a distinction is made under that system between the mode of succession to ordinary property and to office. The latter descend only to males and the right is determined on the footing that the family is not divided in respect of the office. There are installations, especially in connection with the chieftainships in which ancient families of the seemai or province are expected to take part. In some cases, a right of nomination by the incumbent among the members of the family is suggested. In one case where the family was extinct, the people of the seemai (or province) were held to have the power of installation. " ( 14 ) THE above passage which apparently must have been written prior to the decision in Nagaraja's case (1), is found in the Chapter dealing with stanoms under Malabar Law. In one case where the family was extinct, the people of the seemai (or province) were held to have the power of installation. " ( 14 ) THE above passage which apparently must have been written prior to the decision in Nagaraja's case (1), is found in the Chapter dealing with stanoms under Malabar Law. In the said treatise at page 249, we have the following:"the word 'stanam' is of Sanskrit origin, and means 'position' or 'place' and secondarily in the Malayalam language a position of dignity. In the case of certain positions of dignity, there is property attached for the maintenance of the dignity and for the fulfilment of the duties attached to the position. As a techniacal word, 'stanam' means a position of dignity of this kind, that is, one to which certain specific property is attached, and which passes with it, and is held by the person who fills the stanam for the time being and who is known as the 'stani'. " ( 15 ) A summary of the law relating to a stanam is found in the decision of the supreme Court in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala, AIR. 1960 SC. 1080. . After reviewing the passages found in the book of Sundara aiyar referred to above and the decisions of the High Court of Madras in Vira Rayen v. Valia Rani of Padia Kovilagom, ILR. 3 Mad. 141. ; Mohamed v. Krishnan, ILR. 11 Mad. 106 ; Krishnan Kivadu Menpat Parkum Andravan v. Raman, ILR. 39 Mad. 918 and of the Privy Council in K. Kochuni v. K. Kuttanunni, AIR. 1948 PC. 47, the Supreme court summed up the law governing a stanam as follows:"the origin of the sthanam is lost in antiquity. It primarily means a dignity and denotes the status of the Senior Raja in a Malabar kovilgom or palace. It is surmised that sthanams were also created by the Rajas by giving certain properties to military chieftains and public officers and also by tarwads creating them and allocating certain properties for their maintenance. Most of the incidents of a sthanam are well settled. Usually the senior-most male member of the family and occasionally a female member attains a sthanam for the maintenance of its dignity. Most of the incidents of a sthanam are well settled. Usually the senior-most male member of the family and occasionally a female member attains a sthanam for the maintenance of its dignity. The legal position of a sthanam is equated to that of a Hindu widow in that he represents the estate for the time being and he can alienate the properties for necessity or for the benefit of the estate. Unlike a Hindu widow, the successor to a sthanee is aways a life-estate holder. In that respect his position is more analogous to an impartible estate-holder. He ceases to have any present interest in the tarwad properties. Like a Hindu widow or an impartible estate-holder, he' has an absolute interest in the income of the sthanam properties or acquisitions therefrom. His position is approximated to a member separated from the family and that the members of the tarwad succeed to his acquisitions unless accreted to the estate and he succeeds to the tarwad properties, if the tarwad becomes extinct. Questions like what would happen if there is no male heir to a sthanam at any point of time-whether the properties pertaining to the sthanam would escheat to the State or devolve upon the members of the tarwad or whether a subsequent birth of a male heir would revive the sthanam are raised by Sundara Aiyar in his book, but there is a decision of the Madras High Court where in the case of Punnathood family a subsequent born male heir was given a decree for the possession of the properties of a sthanam. On the question whether a sthanam property, not being the property of a member of a tarwad, be blended with the property of the tarwad so as to make it a tarwad property, there is no direct decision. On principle if the sthanee, on attaining the sthanam is in the position of a separated member of a Hindu family, there may not be any scope for the application of the doctrine of blending. On principle if the sthanee, on attaining the sthanam is in the position of a separated member of a Hindu family, there may not be any scope for the application of the doctrine of blending. No member of a tarwad has any right to maintenance from out of the sthanam properties and the mere fact that a sthanee for the time being, out of generosity or otherwise, gives maintenance to one or other members of the tarwad cannot legally have the effect of converting the sthanam property into a tarwad property; nor the fact that the sthanam properties are treated as tarwad propeties can have such a legal effect. Now, what is the relationship between the tarwad and the sthanee? it is true that whatever may be the origin of the sthanam, ordinarily, the seniormost member of a tarwad succeeds to that position, but once he succeeds he ceases to have any proprietary interest in the tarwad. So too, the members of the tarwad have absolutely no proprietary interest in the sthanam property. Thereafter, they continue to be only "blood relations" with perhaps a right of succession to the property of each other on the happening of some contingency. The said right is nothing more than a spes successions; the tarwad may supply future sthanees. " ( 16 ) HAVING in view the legal position set out above, we shall examine the the facts of this case. The plaintiffs have admitted in the plaint about the existence of the pattam. They have, however, alleged that the family of the plaintiffs and the defendants owns the pattam. The defendants have on the other hand urged that defendant 1 alone is the holder of the pattam and no other member of the family can lay claim to that office. The plaintiffs have not led any oral evidence in the case, but have relied on documents, Exts. A1 to A21 an the case. The defendants have examined five witnesses including defendant 1 and have relied on thirteen documents, exts. Bl to B13 in the case. ( 17 ) DEFENDANT 1 has deposed that he was installed as the holder of the pattam or pattamdar on 26-6-1941 and that all the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule are attached to the pattam and in view of the law governing the pattam, he alone is entitled to the said properties. Bl to B13 in the case. ( 17 ) DEFENDANT 1 has deposed that he was installed as the holder of the pattam or pattamdar on 26-6-1941 and that all the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule are attached to the pattam and in view of the law governing the pattam, he alone is entitled to the said properties. He has deposed that his former name was Padmanabhaiah which he dropped at the time of his installation as the pattamdar and assumed the name Channaraya savanta. He further say that his predecessor in office was Dugganna savanta who had succeeded one Channaraya Savanta. He has stated that the pattamdars of the pattam would assume a new name on the assumption of the office either as Dugganna Savanta or Channaraya savanta depending upon the name assumed by his predecessor in office. ( 18 ) HE has also given evidence about the several customary practices followed at the time of the installation cf a pattamdar and in support of this part of his evidence, he relies upon Ext. B10 which is a note-book maintained in his palace containing copies of certain documents of the year 1903 and exts. A2, B11 and B12 dt. 26-6-1941. Ext. B10 contains copies of five documents which are in Kannada. Document No. 1 is a letter dt. 12-1-1903 addressed to the Tahsildar of Mangalore Taluk by one Adirajaiah nephew of Choutara Kunjamma Shett of Mudibidre Aramane. In that it is stated that Channaraya Savanta who was the pattamdar of Mullu Sheeme sawantige died on 9-1-1903 and that as he had no other members of his family living during his lite time, he had taken him (Adirajaiah) and his younger sister Kempamma in adoption as per the custom of the family. ( 19 ) HE reters to a will in the course of the letter said to have been executed by Channaraya Savanta under which Channaraya Savanta had bequathed the properties in favour of himself (Adirajaiah) and Kempamma. He requested in that letter that in view of the said adoption, no escheat proceedings should be started by the Government in respect of the properties belonging to Channaraya Savanta. Document No. 2 dt. He requested in that letter that in view of the said adoption, no escheat proceedings should be started by the Government in respect of the properties belonging to Channaraya Savanta. Document No. 2 dt. 13-1-1903 refers to a petition addressed to the aforesaid Tahsildar by one Devaraja Karnathaya balal of Kulurbidu of Mangalore Taluk in which it is stated that the will executed by Channaraya Savanta in favour of Adiraja had been filed before the Tahsildar and that the said will may be returned in order to get it registered. Devaraja referred to above is stated to be the elder brother of Adiraja, the petitioner in document No. 1 referred to above. Document No. 3 is a petition dt. 13-1-1903 addressed by 13 persons claiming themselves to be the muktessors. The signatories to the said documents are (1) Buggathikari of Aikala Bava, (2) Subba Rai of Simathur bava, (3) Parari Mainda Shetti of Pilli Bettu, (4) Buggathikari of puttur Bava, (5) Dogra Shetty and Venka Mania of Panjada Guttu, (6) thouda Shetti of Talipadi Guttu, (7) Venkappa Shetti of Kulanadu guttu, (8) Rama Rai of Maganedadi, (9) Ramarai of Thokur Guttu, (10) parameswara Shetti of Karnad Guttu, (11) Manjayya Shetti of Bellare pademane, (12) Deja Rai of Kubera Guttu, and (13) Purohit Puttanna bhatta. In this petition it is stated that Channaraya Savanta who held savantige Patta of Mulki Sheeme died on 9-1-1903 and that the said Channaraya savanta had been nominated by the Sheeme people as the 'arasu'. ( 20 ) AS there were no heirs in his family, Channaraya Savanta had with the consent of the petitioner taken in adoption Adiraja, the nephew of Choutara kunjamma Shetti of Mudibidre Aramane and his younger sister kempamma before he died and that he had executed with the consent of them, a separate will in respect of his properties. It was further stated in the petition that as Channnaraya Savanta had become the pattamdar as per the consent of the Sheeme people, he was also entitled by consent to make necessary arrangements for the future of the pattam. It was further stated that all the moveable and immoveable properties which were in the possession of Channaraya Savanta were subject to the right of the general body (hathu samastharu) of the nine maganes of the Mulki sheeme. It was further stated that all the moveable and immoveable properties which were in the possession of Channaraya Savanta were subject to the right of the general body (hathu samastharu) of the nine maganes of the Mulki sheeme. Therefore, in that petition they prayed that Government should not take steps to take possession of the properties, but should release them. The next document is a document dt. 13-1-1903 addressed by 18 persons who were the bavas and the guthus entitled to nominate the pattamdar of the pattam in quesion. In that it is stated as follows:"channaraya Savantha residing at Padupanambur village Valalanke of Mangalore Taluk who had obtained the Savanthike patta of Mulki seema died on the 9th January of this month. He was the Savantha of the 9 Maganes and had obtained the patta having been nominated by the Seema. In his family as there were no heirs after him as pet the Aliyasanthana custom, having obtained our consent he had taken in adoption Adiraja nephew of Choutar Kunjamma Shetti of Mudbidri aramane and his younger sister Kempamma. Before his death, he had after taking the consent of our Seema also executed a will in their favour appointing them to succeed to his rights after his life. The said Channaraya Savantha belonged to the family getting the patta and as per the consent of the Seema he had the full rights to make arrangements after his death. Thus we the general body of the Seema (hathu samastharu) have, this day assembling together installed as per the custom of our seema Adiraja amongst them to the patta and according to the rivaz of the said family we have altered his former name 'adiraja' into that of 'duganna Savantha'. Hence the said Dugganna Savantha has become entitled not only to all the assets of the said Channarayaa savantha but also to the political pension alias inam which he is to get from the Government. Hence we pray that the name of the said Dugganna Savantha may be recorded in the records of the Government and orders may be passed that the annual political pension alias inam of Rs. 331-12-0 as well as the pension in arrears be paid to him. " (underling (italics) by us ). ( 21 ) THE next document is one dt. 331-12-0 as well as the pension in arrears be paid to him. " (underling (italics) by us ). ( 21 ) THE next document is one dt. 15-1-1903 addressed by Dugganna Savanta (formerly known as Adiraja) to Government of India requesting that the pension of Rs. 331-12-0 payable to the pattam might be paid to him. At this stage we may refer to Ext. B12 dt. 26-6-1941 which is a petition signed by 11 persons who are the guthus and the bavas entitled to nominate the pattamdar addressed to the Collector of South Canara. By that petition, the petitioners intimated the Government about the death of the above said Dugganna Savanta and the appointment of one Padmarajaiah as the pttamdar with the new name Channaraya Savanta (defendant 1) in accordance with the custom of the family. The relevant part of the said document is set out below:" Dugganna Savantha who had obtained the savantha patta of the Mulki Seema Aramane of Padupanambur, Volalanke Magane, died yesterday night. The said Dugganna Savantha was a Savantha of 9 Maganes or arasu who had been appointed from our Seema and got the patta. After him, in his family, as per the Aliyasanthana Law, as there were no male heirs, as desired by his younger sister and we also agreeing with her, we the people of the seema (hathu samastharu) gathered together, and as per the custom of our Seeme have this day installed (or given patta) Padmarajayya, and in doing so we have changed his name of Padmarajayya into that of Channaraya Savantha as per the custom of the family and have appointed him the Arasu. Hence the said Channaraya Savantha has become the successor of the deceased Dugganna Savantha and he is fully entitled to get the inam or political pension payable to him. " ( 22 ) A reading of the five documents recorded in Ext. B10 and Ext. B12, makes it clear that prior to 9-1-1903 one Channaraya Savantha was the pattamdar and after his death, one Adiraja became the pattamdar with the name Dugganna Savantha and on his death on 26-6-1941, defendant 1 whose former name was Padmarajaih was appointed as pattamdar with the name Channaraya Savantha by the guthus and the bavas entitled to nominate the pattamdar in accordance with the custom of the family. ( 23 ) THE oral evidence of DWs. ( 23 ) THE oral evidence of DWs. 1 to 5 also supports the above view. The oral evidence of DWs. 1 to 5 referred to above fully establishes that, (i) there is a pattam at Padu Panambur; (ii) that the savant who is appointed by the guthus and the bavas in accordance with the custom of the family is the holder of the pattam; (in) that the pattamdar has certain religious duties to perform in which connection the pattamdar has to incur expenditure which is more than the sum of Rs. 342 which is received as pension from the Government and (iv) that there are some properties which are attached to and used by the pattamdar for the purposes of the pattam. ( 24 ) THE remaining questions lo be considered are (i) whether the immovable properties shown in (items 1 to 51) plaint 'a' schedule and the moveables shown in plaint 'b' schedule are all the properties of the pattam or of the Aliyasanthana Kutumba consisting of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3; and (ii) whether the properties shown in 'c' and 'd' schedules which are the properties belonging to Sri Ananthanatha Devaru and Sri Chandranatha Devaru should be managed by defendant 1 exclusively or by all the parties to the suit. ( 25 ) IT is to be seen that the properties mentioned in plaint 'a' schedule have been standing in the name of either Channaraya Savantha who died in the year 1903 or Dugganna Savantha who died in 1941 or defendant 1. ( 26 ) THE mula vargas in respect of these immovable properties stand in the name of Channaraya Savantha in the records of the Government. The meaning of the expression 'warg' is to be gathered from the decision of the Madras High Court in Secretary of State v. Manjeshwar Krishayya, ILR. 28 Mad. 257 wherein it was observed, "warg is derived from the Sanskrit vargas leaf and was applied to the palm leaves on which the revenue official kept an account of the ryot's holding. A man's warg was simply the account of the assessments payable by him for his lands, which were not necessarily all adjacent, but might be situated at a distance from each other and even in different villages". A man's warg was simply the account of the assessments payable by him for his lands, which were not necessarily all adjacent, but might be situated at a distance from each other and even in different villages". Unless they were properties belonging to the pattam, the name of the savanta which is assumed after installation as pattamdar would not have been entered against them and that they would not have devolved upon males only lineally (Kramagatavagi), since the parties belong to an Aliyasanthana family. ( 27 ) SRI B. P Holla contended that in an Aliyasanthana family, there can be three kinds of property, namelv, (i) self-acquired property of a member of a Kutumba: (ii) the properties belonging to the kutumba: and (iii) the properties belonging to a pattam. He contended that since Channarava savarta disposed of the properties under a will (Ext. B10 (a)) which he could not do if they were the Properties of a pattam, it should be held that all these properties were the self-acquired or separate properties of Channarava Savantha who died in 1903 and after his death, they became the properties of the kutumba consisting of Adiraia, who later became Dupganna Savanta. and Kempamma, and after the death of dueganna Savanta in the year 1941, thev became the properties of the kutumba consisting of Kempamma. plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 and, therefore, all these properties should be held to be kutumba properties. ( 28 ) THE above contention of Sri Folia no doubt appears to be attractive, but we find it difficult to accept the same. As already stated, the properties, in the hands of Channaraya Savanta were the properties which had come to him by lineal descent (Kramagathavagi) and from his predecessors-in-office (Purvadhikarigalarabhya ). The evidence adduced in this case satisfactorily proves that many of the items in the plaint schedule are being used for the purpose of the rattam and all of them stand in the name of the savanta. The properties admittedly devolved on Channaraya savanta on his assumption of the pattam after the death of the previous pattamdar. We, therefore, hold that the properties described in plaint schedule belonged to the pattam and that they were not the separate properties of Channaraya Savanta. The properties admittedly devolved on Channaraya savanta on his assumption of the pattam after the death of the previous pattamdar. We, therefore, hold that the properties described in plaint schedule belonged to the pattam and that they were not the separate properties of Channaraya Savanta. Since they belonged to the pattam and owned by the pattamdar in that capacity, the pattamdar could not have disposed of the properties in favour of the Kutumba by a will which is not binding on the successor. It may be mentioned here that similar contentions were rejected by this Court in Bola Manjayya Shetty's case (2 ). ( 29 ) IN that case also the question for decision was whether assertion of absolute title to the properties of the pattam by a former pattamdar and alienation of the said properties as if they were his separate properties was destructive of the theory that the properties were inalienable. This court answered the question in the negative. Further, in view of the observation of the Supreme Court in KK. Kochunni's case (3) that on his installation, the sthanee ceases to have any proprietary interest in the tarwad and the members of the tarwad to which he belonged before such installation would have no proprietary interest in the property belonging to the sthanam, it should be held that after the installation of Adiraia as the savanta, he ceased to be a member of the kutumba to which Kempamma belonged and hence it cannot be said that he and Kempamma were holding the properties as members of a kutumba. It is no doubt true that Dugranna Savanta has executed some documents mortgaging some of the suit properties along with Kempamma and even defendant 1 has executed some documents along with plaintiff 1 and defendants 2 and 3. It cannot be inferred from that conduct of Dugganna Savanta and defendant 1 that they have treated all these properties as the properties of the Kutumba. It cannot also be assumed that Dugganna Savanta and defendant t recognised the title of Kempamma, plaintiiff 1 and defendants 2 and 3 to the properties. When once it is held that the properties belong to the pattam, it follows that merely by conduct of parties they cannot be converted into properties belonging to a kutumba. As held by this Court in Bola Manjayya Shetty's casse (2 ). When once it is held that the properties belong to the pattam, it follows that merely by conduct of parties they cannot be converted into properties belonging to a kutumba. As held by this Court in Bola Manjayya Shetty's casse (2 ). the properties belonging to a pattam are not transferable except for legal necessity or benefit of the pattam and that the occupant of the pattam possesses only a life estate. Any transfer of the property of the pattam, unless it be for legal necessity or benefit of the pattam, would not be binding on the successor-in-office. ( 30 ) IN the above view of the matter, it is not possible to hold that by reason of the will Ext. B-10 (a) executed by Channarava Savanta or bv reason of dugganna Savanta and defendant 1 executing documents in favour of others along with Kempamma or plaintiff 1 and defendants 2 and 3, the properties of the pattam became the properties of the kutumba. The conduct of a party cannot be pleaded as a bar against him to show the true state of affairs unless the conduct is one which gives rise to an estoppel in this case no such bar of estoppel is either pleaded or established by thp plaintiffs. It is not shown bv the plaintiffs that the properties in plaint 'a' and 'b' schedules became the properties of a kutumba in any manner known to law. ( 31 ) IN view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that plaint 'a' and 'b' schedule properties belong to the pattam and the pattamdar is solely entitled to them and no other person can have any interest in them. The lower court was, therefore, wrong in holding that the said properties belong to a kutumba consisting of the plaintiffs and defendants and the plaintiffs are entitled to a half share in them. ( 32 ) A fortiori it should be held that the pension which is being paid to the pattamdar also belongs exclusively to the pattamdar and we accordingly do so. For the same reason, defendant 1 alone should be held to be the person entitled to manage the properties belonging to Sri Ananthanatha devam and Sri Chandranatha Devaru mentioned in plaint 'c' and 'd' schedules. For the same reason, defendant 1 alone should be held to be the person entitled to manage the properties belonging to Sri Ananthanatha devam and Sri Chandranatha Devaru mentioned in plaint 'c' and 'd' schedules. ( 33 ) THE plaintiffs have claimed maintenance for a period of two years prior to the date of suit from out of the income of plaint 'a' schedule properties on the ground that they were the properties of the kutumba. The lower Court has declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to get past maintenance for two vears before suit. In view of our finding that the properties being to the pattam and not to the kutumba. the plaintiffs are not entitled to anv maintenance. The members of the kutumba to which the pattpmdar before his installation belonged, are not entitled to get maintenance from the properties of the pattam, unless there is anv such custom in respect of the pattam in question. In this case, no such custom has been either reported or establlished. Neither the plaintiffs nor defendants 2 and 3 are entitled to any maintenance from out of the income of the properties of the pattam. That part of the decree of the Court below is also therefore liable to be set aside. ( 34 ) ONE of the questions raised in the Court below was about the validity of simultaneous adoption of two or more persons in a Jain Aliyasanthana family. Both the Counsel did not argue this question before us in view of the decision in Bola Manjayya Shetty's case (2) in which its validity had been upheld. Put Sri K. H. Karanth. the learned Counsel for defendant 1. stated that it should be noted that defendant 1 has not abandoned that plea. We make a record of it. In the result, the appeal is allowed: the judgment and decree of the court below are set aside; and the plaintiffs' suit is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their respective costs in this Court as well as the Court below. --- *** --- .