1. The plaintiffs in a suit for partition are the appellants in this appeal. Plaint A schedule properties along with other properties belonged to a thavazhi tharvard of the plaintiffs and defendants. There was a suit for partition as O.S.No.150 of 1950 before the Sub Court, Thalassery, and plaint A schedule properties were allotted to the group consisting of Amina and her children and grand-children. Amina was the first plaintiff in that suit. Plaintiffs 2 to 6 in that suit were her children and plaintiffs 7 to 11 were the children of the third plaintiff. That the property was allotted to the natural group consisting of Amina and her children in the earlier partition decree is not disputed in this case.

2. The plaintiffs claimed share in the plaint schedule properties on the basis that the properties are co-ownership properties and since there was a severance of status of the joint family by the decree for partition in O.S. No. 150 of 1950, there is no joint family in existence and the shares allotted to the sharers in the earlier suit must be divided among the sharers and their legal representatives according to the Muslim Shariat Law. On that basis the plaintiffs claimed 2117/8 shares out of 380.

3. Defendants 2 to 5 contested the suit. According to them, the allotment of properties to the group consisting of Amina and her descendants enure to the benefit of thavazhi and the members of the thavazhi are entitled to share. In that view of the matter, they contended that the plaintiffs are entitled to get only 41/2 shares out of 30 shares.

4. 23rd defendant contended that he is in possession of 65 cents as a tenant and that his tenancy right has to be reserved while effecting partition.

5. The trial court found that the allotment to the group of Amina and her descedents would enure the benefit of her thavazhi and the plaintiffs are entitled to get only 41/2 shares out of 30 and defendants 2 to 22 are entitled to get 251/2 shares in the group. The question of tenancy set up by the 23rd defendant was referred to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the Land Tribunal found that the 23rd defendant is entitled to tenancy right and adopting the finding of the Land Tribunal, the trial court reserved the right set up by the 23rd defendant.

6. In this appeal, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the partition in the family as per the decree in O.S. No. 150 of 1950 effected a severance of status among the members of the thavazhi and unless there is evidence of re-union, it cannot be held that the allottees in the partition will get the property as a unit and the allotment will enure to the plaintiff and her descendants. He relied on several decisions relating to the principles in Hindu Law about the severance of status and re-union and contended that the judgment of the trial court is unsustainable in Law. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the question involved in this appeal is covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Mary v. Bhasura Devi, 1967 KLT 430 (FB). In that case, the question arose whether the property obtained by a female member in a tharavad partition would become a thavazhi property on the female member giving birth to a child. It was held that under the Marumakkathayam Law, a subsequently conceived child gets a right by birth in the property obtained by its mother for her separate share in the partition of her tharavad thus reducing her absolute powers of disposition of those of a joint family manager. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, if even the property obtained by a female member of the thavazhi in a partition of the tharavad will have a character of the thavazhi property on the female member begetting a child the character of the property obtained by mother and her children together in a thavazhi partition must also have the thavazhi character. In that decision the maj