The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the rules of presumption regarding acquisitions by a member of a tarwad and the requirement for fair compensation for exertions in making acquisitions.

1. This appeal is by the 2nd defendant in a suit for partition under the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1933-58.

2. The ancestress of the tarwad was Narayani Amma, the late mother of the 1st plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, who got divided out from her tarwad in 1935. The 2nd plaintiff and the 5th defendant are the children of the Ist plaintiff; and the 4th defendant the son of the 3rd defendant. Defendants 6, 7 and 8 are children of the 5th defendant. Under S.38 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, the plaintiffs claim partition and separate possession of 2/10 of the suit properties, asserting plaint items 14 and 15 acquired by the 2nd defendant under Ext. B-1 dated September 22, 1950, and Ext. B-5 dated July 18, 1951, and item 16 acquired by defendants 1 and 2 as per Ext. B3 of March 17,1958, to enure to the tarwad as been acquired with the income of tarwad properties. All the defendants support the plaintiffs and claim their shares to be given in this suit, except the 2nd defendant who contends that he had never been in management of the tarwad, and claims plaint items 6 and 14 to 16 and a leasehold in plaint items 2 to 5 to be his separate properties, as also compensation for his improvements on plaint items 7 to 13. The Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam, found that the 2nd defendant had been in management of the tarwad from 1123. that his claim to a separate leasehold interest in plaint items 2 to 5 is false, that he cannot claim any compensation for his improvements on items 7 to 13, that item 6 is a leasehold of the ancestress Narayani Amma which enures to the tarwad, that there is no reliable evidence that the tarwad had any surplus income, but evidence is that the 2nd defendant had some income of his own and that therefore the circumstance that the 2nd defendant was managing (he tarwad affairs cannot by itself be a sufficient ground to hold that items 14 and 15 acquired by him enure to the tarwad and that the purchase of item 16 is for and on behalf of the tarwad, and on the above findings passed a preliminary decree for partition of plaint items 1 to 13 and 16, with incidental reliefs, giving the plaintiffs two shares, 1st defendant one share, and defendants 3 to 8 six shares, leaving one share to the 2nd defendant. On appeal, the District Judge, Palghat, held that the 2nd defendant was "only cultivating the family properties as directed by the 1st defendant", though "there is no clear evidence when exactly the 2nd defendant entered management", that the 1st defendant "had actual control over the family funds", and that item 16 really enured to defendants 1 and 2 only, but since the 1st defendant has admitted it to belong to the tarwad his half share would be so treated and partitioned as tarwad property giving the 2nd defendant also a share therein, and affirmed the Subordinate Judge in other respects. The 2nd defendant has come up in second appeal against the dismissal of his claims and the plaintiffs have preferred a cross-objection claiming plaint items 14,15 and 16 to belong to the tarwad.

3. This appeal was heard at length on November 2, 3 and 4,1967, but before the judgment could be delivered, it was found that one of the sharers has not been impleaded in this appeal and thereupon counsel for plaintiffs prayed an adjournment to get that defect cured. On November 10, the 5th defendant filed C. M. P. Nos. 10251, 10252 and 10253 of 1967. These petitions were opposed by counsel for the appellant and heard at length on November 17, and 20 and today. As I expressed my inclination to allow the petitions, counsel on all sides stated that on the merits of the case the arguments heard already may be taken as arguments for the party sought to be added newly. Before I proceed to dispose of the petitions and the appeal, I must record that I have had the greatest possible assistance from counsel on both sides and acknowledge my indebtedness to them both for the illuminating arguments they presented. Though elaborate discuss