1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition of one item of property. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 13 are 'thandans' by caste and are members of a tarwad which is governed by marumakkathayam law, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 being members of one branch and defendants 7 to 13 being members of the other branch. In their branch, the plaintiffs belong to one sub branch and defendants 1 to 6 belong to the other. The 14th defendant a stranger, has purchased the rights of all the members of the tarwad except the plaintiffs who have filed the suit for partition of their 1/4th share per stirpes. The two courts have repelled the contentions of the 14th defendant and decreed the plaintiffs' claim. Hence this second appeal by the 14th defendant.

2. There is no substance in the contention of the 14th defendant, that under the marumakkathayam law the plaintiffs cannot compel a partition, the 14th defendant having become the transferee of the shares of all the members of the tarwad, except the plaintiffs. I am also of the view, that the second contention, that the plaintiffs cannot claim their share per stirpes or are entitled only to their share per capita ca