To attain divided status in a Marumakkathayam tarwad, it is sufficient for a member to deliver notice to the karanavan alone, and there is no need for issuing notices to all the members individually for that purpose.

1. The preliminary judgment and decree for partition and redemption of the plaintiff's 94/116 share in the plaint schedule property, passed by the trial court, in the suit giving rise to this second appeal, have been confirmed by the first appellate court. Out of the many grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal the one, which was stressed by the counsel for the appellants during the course of his arguments, relates to the question as to whether a member of a Marumakkathayam tarwad attains divided status, conferring en him an alienable and heritable share of the tarwad properties, on his issuing a notice to the karanavan of his fixed intention to separate from the rest of the tarwad, without issuing such notices to the other members of the tarwad. Considering the importance of the question of law involved, the learned judge before whom the second appeal came up in the first instance adjourned it for being heard by a Division Bench which, in its turn, has referred it to a Full Bench; that is how the matter ultimately came up for hearing before us.

2. The appellants are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The plaint schedule property in 50 cents of land forming part of a survey number, 1.55 acres in extent, which belonged to a Nair tarwad. The whole property was outstanding on mortgages granted by the tarwad in the years 1061 and and 1071 and purakkadams of 1079,1080 and 1086. The plaintiff (respondent herein) obtained the mortgage right over the plaint schedule property. Defendants 1 and 2 (appellants herein) obtained, as plaintiffs in O. S. No. 454 of 1951 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Attingal, wherein the respondent herein (plaintiff) was 1st defendant, on behalf of his branch (sakha), a decree for redemption of a 1/3 share of the mortgage property. Ext. P-13 is the copy of judgment dated 30-9-1957 in that suit. The finding in Ext. P-13 judgment under Issue No. 4 was to the effect that the tarwad of the appellants herein has become divided into three sakhas; and that was the reason why redemption allowed in favour of the appellants on behalf of their sakha was confined to 1/3 of the mortgage property, though the appellants had claimed relief with respect to the entire property.

3. The plaintiff in the present suit admittedly is a stranger to the tarwad of the appellants. His suit is on the strength of Exts. P-1, P-4 and P-24, sale deeds executed by 94 out of 116 members of the appellants' sakha, preceded by registered notices to the karanavan of the sakha. Ext. P-14 series are postal receipts in evidence of the issue of notices to the karnavan by the vendors in Exts. P-1, P-4 and P-24 sale deeds.

4. Virtually the 2nd defendant alone contested the suit. The main defence put forward by him was that those who executed Exts. P-1, P-4 and P-24 sale deeds issued no notice of their intention to separate from the rest of the tarwad to the other members, except the karanavan and therefore they did not attain divided status or obtain any alienable share in, the tarwad property, and therefore the plaintiff derived no title to the plaint schedule property by or under Exts. P-1, P-4 and P-24.

5. Reliance was placed by the counsel for the appellants on the decision of the Supreme Court in A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenhcamma, AIR. 1964 SC. 136=1964 (I) SC. Appeals 593 wherein Subba Rao J., as he then was, has observed as follows:

"One cannot declare or manifest his mental state in a vacuum. To declare is to make-known, to assert to others 'Others' must necessarily be those affected by the said declaration. Therefore a member of a joint Hindu family seeking to separate himself from others will have to make known his intention to the other members of the family from whom he seeks to separate."

In that case the Supreme Court did not accept the view of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Narayana Rao v. Purushotama Rao 1LR.1938 Madras 315 wherein, speaking for the Bench, Varadachariar, J, has stated as follows:

"It is true that th