1. The 4th defendant in O.S. No. 345 of 1948 of the District Munsiff s Court, Badagara- a suit for partition - is the appellant before us. The properties concerned belonged to one Kunhi Chekkan in kanom¬kuzhikanom from the Kauttmatath Mana.

2. On the death of Kunhi Chekkan the properties devolved on his children under his will, Ext. A7 dated 17-12-1908. The courts below have found that the children took the properties with all the incidents of a tarwad property under the marumakkathayam system of law. That finding is not challenged before us.

3. Kunhi, Kalliani and defendants 2 and 3, four of the children of Kunhi Chekkan, assigned their rights to one Kadungon by Ext. B1 dated 5-1-1943. Kadungon in his turn assigned his rights under the document to the appellant by Ext. B2 dated 26-11-1943.

4. It is common ground that the assignors under Ext. B1 could have claimed partition if they had so desired under S.38 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932. It is also agreed that they had not done so, and that no severance of status had been effected prior to the execution of Ext. B1.

5. It is not disputed that under the marumakkathayam system of law as it stood prior to the Madras M