Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for a partition of the plaint-mentioned properties and for delivery of plaintiffs share to them, together with future mesne profits. The plaintiffs and the defendants, together with Paru Amma and her sons separated from their main tar wad and formed a branch in 1901. In that year, it was proposed to divide this branch into eight sub-tavazhis, the plaintiffs forming the first two sub-tavazhis, Paru Amma and her sons the third sub-tavazhi and the defendants forming the sub-tavazhis 4, 5, 6, 7 and

8. But before the document was fair-copied (see paragraph 24 of Ex. A) the sub-tavazhis 3 (composed of Paru Anama and her sons) 6 and 7 agreed to remain joint; so also sub-tavazhis 4 and 8; and provision was made in the karar that, if these tavazhis found it inconvenient to remain joint, they might also separate, in accordance with the provision of the karar.

2. Paru Ammas tavazhi (No. 3) has now become, extinct and the plaintiffs sue for partition of the property, which belonged to that branch. The case of the plaintiffs is that paragraph 24 of Ex. A was not acte