The main legal point established in the given judgment is that under the Marumakkathayam Law, plaintiffs who are only some of the members of a tavazhi are not entitled to get their shares separated without the junction of the remaining members.

These two appeals arise from the judgment and decree in O.S. 2/1976 Sub Court, Kavarathi in Lakshadweep. The suit is one for partition of 36 items of immovable properties, a boat and amount received by way of compensation for land acquired by Government. Some items are claimed by plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 19 and the remaining items by plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 22. Defendants 20 and 22 resisted the suit and contended that they belong to a different tarwad and claimed some of the plaint schedule properties as belonging to their tarwad. There was also dispute inter se between plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 19. Defendants 20 to 22 were found to be members of a different tarwad and the properties in their possession were found to be not available for partition. A preliminary decree was passed for division of the properties found available into 24 shares and for allotment of one share to plaintiffs. Other consequential reliefs were also granted. Aggrieved by that decision plaintiffs have come up in appeal in A.S. 358/1986. The other appeal is filed by defendants 1 to 9, 11 to 14, 34 and 39. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they were heard jointly and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The plaint contains the following averments : Plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 22 are members of an undivided marumakkathayam tarwad called avvamada. The plaint B and C schedule properties belong to that tarwad. The properties are in the management of the 1st defendant who is the seniormost female member as Karanavathi assisted by 21st defendant. The geneology is shown in plaint A schedule. Plaint B schedule items 1 to 25 and 29 to 34 belong to the tarwad. Items 26 to 28 of B schedule and the boat described in C schedule belong to Avvamada thavazhi of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 19. Plaintiffs therefore claim one out of 24 shares in items 1 to 25 and 29 to 34 of the B schedule and 1/24 share over the remaining items in B schedule and the C Schedule boat. The D schedule contains the amount received towards compensation for land acquired and that also has to be divided among plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 27. Defendants 23, 24 and 39 are children born to the family members of the thavazhi since the filing of the suit. Defendants 24 to 26 are assignees from defendants 1 and 3. Defendants 27 to 33 are the legal representatives of previous karanavan Koya and defendants 35 to 38 are the legal representatives of 27th defendant, 40th defendant was impleaded as a person having some right over the property. Additional plaintiffs 6 to 8 born subsequent to the filing of the suit were also impleaded. Items 35 and 36 were also included in the plaint schedule by way of amendment.

3. The suit was mainly resisted by defendants 20 and 22. According to them defendants 20 to 22 are members of a different tarwad by name Maneth and are not in any way related to Avvamada tarwad. They deny the management of the 21st defendant who died before the filing of the written statement. They claim rights over some of the plaint B schedule properties as properties of their tarwad. The names of those properties are shown in the written statement. Dispute was also raised regarding the correctness of the genealogical table.

4. Defendants 1, 5 and 8 in their joint written statement contended that the claim for partition by plaintiffs is not sustainable during the life time of the 1st defendant since plaintiffs are claiming through her. They further contended that the tarwad properties had been partitioned into four thavazhies who are in enjoyment of the respective properties allotted to each. First defendant is not the Karanavathi of the tarwad and she is not managing the tarwad properties. The allegation that 21st defendant was helping her was denied. The tarwad properties are to be divided on stirpal basis and not per capita. There is no custom in the island permitting division of tarwad properties on per capita basis. The compen