NORONHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Regular First Appeal is against the judgment and decree of the civil Judge, Udipi, S. Kanara, in OS. 11 of 1968 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, who, are 23 in number, for declaration and possession future mesne profits. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein, alleged that the 1st defendant has no right to alienate or otherwise transfer possession of the properties described in the plaint A schedule in favour of the defendants 2 to 11. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that the AHyasanthana family of the plaintiffs and first defendant was divided ever since Ex P1, d. 16-8-1897, and therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs claimed. ( 3 ) THE lower Court, after bestowing ample thought, has construed ex. P1 (which is in Kannada, a language familiar to the parties thereto) to be an out-and-out deed of partition and not a mere karar or agreement for maintenance or convenience of enjoyment of the family properties. It is this finding of the trial Court that is challenged in this appeal. ( 4 ) THE sole point, therefore, that falls for decision beforev us, is as to what was the intention of the parties, as can be gathered from Ex. P1? thk is the stand taken, and we feel appropriately, by bqth Sri M. Gopalakrishna Shetty, and Sri B. P. Holla, learned Advocates, for tht appellant (plaintiffs) and the respondents (defendants 2 to 11), respectively. The aged first defendant died pending trial of the suit. ( 5 ) IN almost comparable cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the decision in each case of this nature depends on its own facts and circumstances It is now well settled that in construing a document, the document has to be read as a whole, taking into consideration the title given to it its preamble and the various clauses contained therein ( 6 ) IN Rathidem v Sarasamma, 8 LR. 791. it has been held by a Division Pench cf this Court that the title given to a document by the parties is a factor of some importance, and it indicates though not conclusively what the intention rf the parties of the document was Similar observations are also in a later Division Bench of this Court in S. Raianna v S M Dhondusa air 1970 Myg. 270 In Appa v. Kachai Binan Kutti ,air 1932 Mad. 689 it is held that the name given by the parties to a document is not conclusive as to its real legal nature and effect though that undoubtedly is a circumstance to be taken into consideration along with the contents of that document ( 7 ) IT follows, therefore that the title given to a document, though not bv itself conclusive of its nature cannot be ignored and has to be considered in assessing the intention of the parties to the document In the instant case the. document (Ex P1) is described as P 'vibhaa patra' (partition deed) and nof as a Karar (agreement) for maintenance or for ccnvenience of enjoymen of the family properties ( 8 ) THE preamble to a document has been rightlv described in the decision in Rathidevi's case (1) above referred to as often-times the key to the intention of the parties to it Hegde, ,t who snoke for the Bench, has said that if the terms in the operative portion of a document are not inconsistent with the premble thereto then the Courts have to construe that document in accordance with its declared obiect ( 9 ) THE first two paragraphs of Ex PI are as below :" Partition deed in respect of immoveable properties dated the 16th day of August 1897 entered into by (1) Thyampa Shetty, aged about 32 years, (2) Ponkra Shetty, aged about 27 years, (3) Patel raju Shetty aged about 24 years (4) Sheenku alias Poova Shedthi, aged about 21 years, all children of Thengali Chennamma, Bunts, agriculturists, residing in Nadisal Magane Varankila Village, Mangalore taluk, and (5) Doonha alias Koraga Shetty, son of Akku, daughter of an aunt of Chennamma narayana Shetty, the previous ejman was managing both the ancestral properties and the properties purchased by him, namely serial Nos 1 to 7 mention d herebelow, till his death last year Ever since his death there have been quarrels amongst us in respect of kucthala and certificate; cultivation is not done properly; it has become impossible to continue jointly in a single houshold quarrels have started increasing; hence respectable persons have met and have brought about a compromise amongst us Since parties 1 to 4 are entitled to a half share in the aforesaid properties and since party No. 5 and his direct younger brother Sheshu, aged 15 years, and his direct younger sister, Korapalu, aged 10 years (the last two being under the care and custody of party No. 5) are together entitled to the remaining half share in those properties; and since they thought it best toi divide the properties now itself into two shares so as to enjoy the properties separately, we have agreed and have divinded the properties into two shares as hereunder. " (The underlining, italics for emphasis, is ours ). ( 10 ) THE object of Ex. " (The underlining, italics for emphasis, is ours ). ( 10 ) THE object of Ex. P1 in the, second paragraph supports the case of the respondents that it brought about an outright disruption and partition of the joint family, at urged by Si i Holla in support of the view taken by the Court below. Sri Holla further contended, and we feel jusifiably that, as if to make assurance, doubly sure], towards the end of the document in two places Ex. P1 is described as a 'partition deed'. ( 11 ) IT must be remembered that at the time of Ex. P1, partition in aliyasanthana Kutumbas (families) was not permissible except with the, consent of all the adult members of the family. In this case, the kutumba known as the 'tengale Kutumba' which was admittedly governed by the aliyasanthana Law of Inheritance, consisted at the relevant time of only two 'kayarus' viz, the 'kavaru' of the plaintiffs and the 'kavaru' of the 1st defendant. To the registered document Ex. P1, all the then living adult members of the kutumba are parties. It is further seen from the clauses of Ex. P1 that the entire properties, immoveable, and moveable, and all other assets, which were owned by the joint family at that time were made the subject-matter of the document, and not a single item of property of the family is omitted. The division so effected was into two shares, and the, recitals in the document show that the division has been made equitably with reference to good and bad lands. The parties have been at pains in ex. P1 to even describe the boundaries of the properties: that have fallen tq each share, in meticulous detail. Mention of such details would not, have been necessary in case the document was only a karar for maintenance or for convenience of enjoyment. ( 12 ) IT is further seen from the clauses of the document Ex. P1 that each branch is to enjoy Its share, from generation to generation; that there would be separate mutations and pattas in respect of the properties allotted, to each branch, and the assessments are to be paid separately. ( 13 ) A specific provision has been made in Ex. P1 for protecting the rights of way and water in the properties alotted to the two sharers, as easements of necessity. ( 13 ) A specific provision has been made in Ex. P1 for protecting the rights of way and water in the properties alotted to the two sharers, as easements of necessity. Provision has also been made in Ex. P1 for the members of the second branch to have a separate residence in a, plot allotted to their share. What is more,, the kutumba had been split up in this case, as a matter of fact, according to the natural kavarus comprising four members of plaintiffs' kavaru and three members of the other kavaru, though the word 'kavaru' is not specifically mentioned in the document. Provision has further been made in Ex. P1 for collection and distribution of debts and outstandings and a charge has been created on the share of the first party in respect of the share1 o| the outstandings due to the members of the, second party. There would be no need for such a charge if the document Ex. P1 were only a dead of maintenance or a family arrangement for convenience of enjoyment. Even the interest of the minors has been adequately safeguarded under the document. It is very significant to note, that in the entire document Ex. P1 there is no reference to the joint kutumba. But thq document liberally uses the word hisse,' and 'palu' (both meaning 'shape'), and it goes on to say as follows-" As the properties have been divided and shares have been carved out by mutual consent and agreemant, there should not be any difficulty for cultivation. No sharer has any right to say that the shares are unequal or that there are other properties yet to be divided". This clause evidently is wholly consistent with the document being a deed of out-right partition as inferred by the learned Civil Judge and contended by Sri Holla. ( 14 ) HOWEVER, Sri Shetty has drawn our attention to certain other clauses in the document which, according to him, militate against Ex. P1 being construed as a deed of outright partition. Firstly, he has pointed out that the necessity for Ex. P1 arose in view of the quarrels in the family. That is so; but it is clear from the preamble, to which we have already adverted, that these quarrels were such that the parties found it impossible to patch up and to live in jointness. Firstly, he has pointed out that the necessity for Ex. P1 arose in view of the quarrels in the family. That is so; but it is clear from the preamble, to which we have already adverted, that these quarrels were such that the parties found it impossible to patch up and to live in jointness. Hence we do not see how the clause in the document relating to the object of the partition, helps the appellants' case. ( 15 ) SO far as the 'viniyoga' properties are concerned, it is ordained in the document as below :" Thyamapa Shetty, the eldest out of the first sharer shall pay the assessment to the Goverment and the balance of the income shall be spent to perform the viniyogas and religious functions at home properly in the presence of the second sharer. The above mentioned properties shall not be transferred or sold to anybody. If the first sharer disobeys this clause and alienates these properties, such alienation is not valid and the second sharer is entitled to invalidate such alienation and take possession of these properties and perform the viniyogas. As the income of the Kolpadi properties is now estimated after deducting the assessment, in case more assessment has to be paid after settlement, the second sharer is liable to pay the first sharer his half share of such increased assessment. " ( 16 ) IT is clear from the above that even these properties which are earmarked for 'viniyogas' were primarily distributed to the first sharer and therefore the condition with regard to the distribution of all the properties is fulfilled. At any rate, these properties must be deemed to have been constituted as Trust properties and, even granting for the sake of argument that these properties which are described in the document are properties set apart for 'katle, kandachara and viniyogas', have to be held to be separated from the family properties since the rest of the family properties have been distributed amongst the sharers, and the document would till undoubtedly be an instrument of partition. ( 17 ) THE absence of the, words ' Icchanu sara' (as desired) in the document are not of consequence as it is stated that the properties are to be enjoyed from generation to generation, which would onlv imply that the properties were to be enjoyed in perpetuity according to the wishes of the sharers. ( 17 ) THE absence of the, words ' Icchanu sara' (as desired) in the document are not of consequence as it is stated that the properties are to be enjoyed from generation to generation, which would onlv imply that the properties were to be enjoyed in perpetuity according to the wishes of the sharers. The sharing of subsequent increases in assessment also, in our view, is not inconsistent with the document being a deed of partition; nor is the term regarding the jointness of one sentimental wild jack tree. The only clause in the document which may be said to bei inconsistent with partition is the clause restraining alienation. The document (Ex. P1) incites that in case there is any necessity to alienate, it shall be sold to the other sharer and not to strangers; if it is sold or alienated to others, such sale can be invalidated and taken possession of by the other sharer. Bui this one clause which is helpful to the plaintiffs' case will not in pur opinion, tilt the balance in favour of a family arrangement and against an outright partition. Moreover, the word 'sale' is very significant and can be only consistent with an outright partition As pointed out by Sri Holla, the saving clauses were to preserve the sentiments, traditions and dignity of an ancient and respected Alivasantana family to the outside world, despite the domestic turmoil, and a total lack of harmony in functioning as a joint kutumba (family ). ( 18 ) SRI Shetty has drawn our attention to the decision of Somayva, J. , in Ammalu Amma v Vosu Menon AIR. 1944 Mad. 108. . In that decision the learned Judge has said at page 116:" No doubt it may not be common, but if on a reading of the, entire document, there are clauses which are entirely inconsistent with an out and out partition, the Courts are bound to construe the document as a maintenance arrangement even though it is stated to be a permanent arrangement. " ( 19 ) BUT it is not as if that the several clauses found in Ex. P1, which are referred to above, were there in the document examined and analysed in the Madras decision. " ( 19 ) BUT it is not as if that the several clauses found in Ex. P1, which are referred to above, were there in the document examined and analysed in the Madras decision. It is to be noted that in the Madras decision, there) were even classes for common sharing of amount of compensation of properties allotted to the Tavazhis (branches) in future acquisitions and provision was made, for discharge of assessment due of one Tavazhi by the other Tavazhi and that, in the event of necessity for future loans, all the male and adult female members of the three Tavazhis should join together; and also it was further declared in that document that beyond the fact that properties were allotted for the expenses and maintenance, nobcdy has any right or claim to raise; any fresh loan or to dispose of the properties individually. Such clauses are almost lacking in Ex. P1, and therefore that decision is not on all fours with the facts and circumtances of the instant case. ( 20 ) SRI Shetty also referred us to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gummanna v. Nagaveniamma,. AIR. 1967 SC. 1697= (1967) 2 Myslj. 290. There the question was as to whether the document was a deed of partition, or of maintenance or convenience of enjoyment. The respondents had relied on several features as indicative, of an outright partition. They were;-The properties were divided into two shares. Each branch was to enjoy its share in perpetuity without any interference from the other branch. There would be separate mutations and separate pattas in respect of the oroperties allotted to each branch. The assessments were to be paid separatey. Each branch would have a separate manager. The share of the common debt allotted to each branch and tic interest thereon would be paid separately The Supreme Court held that all these features, coupled with other circumstances, may indicate a complete disruption of the family, but there are other features of the deed which indicate that it did not effect an outright partition. They then referred to the other features viz, the object of the deed was to prevent disputesand wastage of the properties and to preserve the dignity of the family. In terms, the, deed did not declare that theare was a complete disraption of the family. They then referred to the other features viz, the object of the deed was to prevent disputesand wastage of the properties and to preserve the dignity of the family. In terms, the, deed did not declare that theare was a complete disraption of the family. In case of a partition, a kutumba, (family) governed, by the) Aliyasanthana, law is usually split up according to the natural 'kavarus', (branches) but under that deed, the; kutumba was split up into two artificial branchy. The members of the two branches were restrained] from incurring debts binding on the, family properties and from alienating the (properties or any portion thereof and granting any lease, exccept in the ordinary course of managment. Moreover, the deed provided that if any branch became 'nissanthati' (heirless) the properties would pass on to the members of the other branch. Considering the document as a whole in all its parts, the Supreme Court held that it did not amount to an outright partition of the joint family. But, so far as Ex. P1 in this case, is concerned. , while almost all the features which are in favqur of partition referred to by the Supreme Court are there the features which are against partition are absent. Hence the. Supreme Court decision, in the circumstances of this case, cannot be; of assistance to the plaintiffs. ( 21 ) CONSIDERING the document (Ex. P1) in its entirely, and also having duq regard to the fact that the document is repeatedly termed a partition deed, we are firmly of the opinion that Ex. P1 is a deed of out-and- out partition. The lower Court was, therefore, right, in. our opinion in holding so. ( 22 ) IN the result, therefore, we dismiss this appeal. Consequently tha application for amendment (I. A.-1)does not survive, and stands dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the respondents, and confined only to costs in the Court below, have not been pursued seriously before us, and they stand dismissed. ( 23 ) IN the circumstances of this case, we direct both sides to bear their own costs here. --- *** --- .