K. P. Balanarayana Marar, J.

1. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 8 in a suit for partition are the appellants. Respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs and respondents 5 to 19 are the other defendants.

2. Plaint B schedule properties originally belonged to the parties and the tarwad of the parties and in a partition of the tarwad properties of the year 1944 these properties were allotted to Lakshmi Amma, the Ist defendant, arid her, descendants. Some of the properties were since then assigned and remaining properties are described in the plaint B schedule. Plaintiffs claimed separation of their shares. The partition deed entered into on 1-6-1974 is not binding on the plaintiffs since the partition is not fair and equitable. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 1 to 17 are the members of the tavazhi. Defendants 18 to 22 were impleaded since they were found to be in possession of a small portion of the properties.

3. The suit was resisted by defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 8 who contended that a division of the properties had taken place as per the partition deed dt. 1-6-1974. They further contended that the partition was fair and just and that the plaintiffs' mother had represented them as their gua