Judgment :- 1. Three members of a Nair Tarwad filed the suit for partition of the tarwad properties and obtained a preliminary decree for the same. One of these three members by name Padmanabhan Nair died while the appeal against the preliminary decree was pending in the High Court. His wife and child applied to get themselves impleaded in the appeal as the legal representatives of Padmanabhan Nair. The remaining plaintiffs who were respondents in appeal objected to the same as according to them, Padmanabhan Nair had no definite share in the properties. The status of the petitioners as the legal wife and child of Padmanabhan Nair was also questioned. Giving the remaining plaintiffs the right to agitate this matter in the trial court, the High Court impleaded the alleged wife and child in appeal. When the matter came back to the lower court for the passing of the final decree, the alleged wife and child filed a petition for Padmanabhan Nair's one-third share in the properties that would be allotted to the three plaintiffs and claimed it to be divided by metes and bounds as according to them he had under law a right to such share. The objections raised by the plaintiffs in the High Court were repeated by them. The learned judge therefore held an enquiry as to the status of the petitioners as well as the question whether Padmanabhan Nair had any definite share. He came to the conclusion that before his death Padmanabhan Nair had claimed his share in the tarwad properties, that he had therefore attained a divided status, that his share would therefore go to his legal representatives and that the Ist petitioner was the legal wife of the deceased Padmanabhan Nair and the 2nd petitioner was the legitimate child by that union. They were therefore allowed the share in the properties which would have gone to Padmanabhan Nair had he been alive. It is against this order that the present appeal is filed by the two remaining plaintiffs. 2. In the objection petition filed by the plaintiffs there was no denial of the status of the petitioners as the wife and child of the deceased Padmanabhan Nair. The only contention was that they were to prove their status. It is against this order that the present appeal is filed by the two remaining plaintiffs. 2. In the objection petition filed by the plaintiffs there was no denial of the status of the petitioners as the wife and child of the deceased Padmanabhan Nair. The only contention was that they were to prove their status. P.W. 4 had sworn that the 1st petitioner was the legal wife of the deceased Padmanabhan Nair and the child was born of that marriage. The status also was not seriously disputed before us in argument. We would therefore confirm the findings of the lower court that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Padmanabhan Nair. 3. It is settled law in Cochin that if a member of a Nair Tarwad expresses in unequivocal terms his intention to get himself separated from the other members that would constitute partition so that he can claim his share in the properties. When a member or members of a tarwad join as plaintiffs in a suit there is no presumption that they intend to sever their status as between themselves unless a contrary intention is expressed by making a claim for their individual shares. Vide Vasudevan Unnikartha v. Kannan Unni Kartha (20 Cochin Law Reports 388). Even after a decree for partition jointly in favour of several members if applications for the separate shares are made by the plaintiffs that would also constitute a partition among the plaintiffs inter se and the court is competent to allot the shares to the plaintiffs who make such applications. This principle is also accepted by a Full Bench in Krishnan Pattar v. Ganapathi Iyer (34 Cochin Law Reports 631). It was conceded that if Padmanabhan Nair had demanded his share to the knowledge of other plaintiffs then his legal representatives would get that share. From the evidence in this case it was seen that before the preliminary decree was confirmed by the High Court, Padmanabhan Nair had claimed his share and that he had engaged P.W. 1,2 and others as mediators. P.W.1 is a respectable person owning properties worth about Rs. 12,000. He is a Panchayat President and he swore that at the instance of Padmanabhan Nair he had approached the other plaintiffs and the 1st defendant the Karnavan of the tarwad to give Padmanabhan Nair his separate share. P.W.1 is a respectable person owning properties worth about Rs. 12,000. He is a Panchayat President and he swore that at the instance of Padmanabhan Nair he had approached the other plaintiffs and the 1st defendant the Karnavan of the tarwad to give Padmanabhan Nair his separate share. According to him these persons agreed to the same but the 1st defendant stated that it could be effected only after the High Court decision. P.W. 2 was another mediator whose joint family properties are worth Rs. 50,000. He also supported the petitioners' case and said that in 1120 Medam he had approached the plaintiffs and the 2nd plaintiff's husband Krishnan Nair for the purpose. These persons agreed to the partition. P.W. 3 also supported the petitioners. It was therefore clear that before his death Padmanaban Nair had claimed his share in the tarwad properties so that his legal representatives could claim what he could have got had he been alive. The petitioners are therefore competent to claim Padmanabhan Nair's share and the order of the lower court is correct. In dividing the properties, the accounts between the plaintiffs would be settled and a final decree passed. We therefore confirm the order of the lower court and dismiss the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed.