Judgment :- 1. These two appeals have been heard together since the essential question involved in both is the same and some of the parties are common. They may be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. A. S.219 of 1955, the later appeal, is from the later suit, O.S. 144 of 1952, a suit for the partition of a Mappilla Marumakkathayam tarwad called the Thurutheelakath tarwad governed by the provisions of the Mappilla Marumakkathayam Act (Madras Act XVII of 1939). The earlier appeal, A. S.179 of 1955, is from the earlier suit, O. S.74 of 1951, for the partition of a thavazhi, called the Thottinakkara Puthiapura, of the said tarwad. The main contention in both the suits was that the partition should be in accordance with Muslim law. The court below upheld this contention following the decision of a single judge of the Madras High Court in Aiysumma v. Maymooty Umma, A. I. R.1953 Mad. 425, and passed a preliminary decree for partition on the basis that with the enactment of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, Central Act XXVI of 1937, followed by the Madras Shariat (Amendment Act) Act XVIII of 1949 assuring the application of the provisions of the Central Act to agricultural land, there was as on 10-7-1937, the date on which the Central Act came into force, a disruption of every Mappilla Marumakkathayam family and a division of its property on a per capita basis. There was as on that date, a vesting in each member of his individual share to be inherited by his heirs in accordance with Muslim law, the members holding the property thereafter as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. Therefore the devolution thereafter was not by survivorship but by succession to the separated share of each individual member. The result was that while the personal heirs of members who died between 1937 and the institution of the suit were given shares although some of those heirs were not members of the joint family, some "after born" children, who are undisputedly members of the family, were denied a share. Some of these "disinherited" members have filed these appeals while some others have filed memoranda of cross-objections. 3. The decision on which the court below relied has since been overruled by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Abdurahiman v. Avoomma, A.I.R. 1956 Mad. 244. Some of these "disinherited" members have filed these appeals while some others have filed memoranda of cross-objections. 3. The decision on which the court below relied has since been overruled by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Abdurahiman v. Avoomma, A.I.R. 1956 Mad. 244. With due respect we think that this later decision embodies the correct view of the law, and we might add that all the parties who have appeared before us are agreed that the appeals must be allowed and the division effected in accordance with the provisions of the Mappilla Marumakkathayam Act. How exactly this should be done, we shall have to work out separately with reference to each suit. There are also certain other subsidiary questions which fall for decision. (Their Lordships discussed the facts of the case in Para.4 to 14) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 15. In the result the appeal and the memorandum of cross-objections by defendants 7 and 14 are allowed. The preliminary decree passed by the lower court is set aside and in its place there will be a preliminary decree in accordance with Para.12 and 13 of this judgment. We wish to make it clear that the findings of the court below as to what are the properties of the thavazhi available for partition, and its direction that the claims of certain of the parties to reservations and equities should be decided in the final decree proceedings, will stand With regard to issue No. 9 which is whether the thavazhi house should be partitioned all that is said in the judgment of the lower court is that the parties want it to be partitioned. They still want it, and that will be done. The costs of the appellants and of the cross-objectors, defendants 7 and 14, will come out of the estate. The remaining parties will suffer their own costs. 16. The 1st defendant's memorandum of cross-objections is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee one set.