1. In view of the findings of the lower Appellate Court in these cases, Mr. C. Madhavan Nair, who appears for the appellants, has only questioned the decision as regards the partition deed, Exhibit C. This raises a question of Malabar Law of some importance on which we have derived much assistance from his argument and those of Mr. K.P.M. Menon and Mr. C.V. Ananthakrishna Aiyar for various respondents. The division under Exhibit C is a division of the Tarwad properties per stirpes, that is to say, allotting an equal share to each stirpe or Tavazhi. It is, of course, well settled in Malabar that there can be no partition at all, except by the consent of all the adult members. As regards the minor members of the Tarwad, it was observed by Sankaran Nair, J. in Parakutti v. Kelapan Nair 34 Ind. Cas. 818 ; 31 M.L.J. 879 ; (1907) M.W.N. 106 "such a partition would ordinarily be binding on the minors, but if on attaining majority, they are able to show that they have been prejudiced, that partition could be re opened so far as they are concerned, and they would be awarded the share which should have been set apart for them; but subject to this, the partition is final as between th