Judgment :- 1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 94 of 1954 on the file of the Sub-Court at Attingal have preferred this appeal against the decree dismissing the suit. Originally there were 41 plaintiffs of whom the 41st plaintiff died & her heirs were impleaded as additional plaintiffs 42 & 43. These plaintiffs & the defendants in the suit are members of one and the same tarwad consisting of 4 thavazhies. These parties are Ezhavas & are governed by the Travancore Ezhava Act, Act III of 1100. Plaintiffs' suit is for partition of the common tarwad properties on a per capita basis and for recovery of the share due to the plaintiffs' branch. The majority of the members in the plaintiffs' branch have figured as plaintiffs and the remaining members are included in the party array among defendants. On the date of the suit the total number of members in the tarwad is stated to be 105, of which 71 members belonged to the plaintiffs' branch. On this basis, plaintiffs have claimed for their branch 71/105 share out of the scheduled properties There was an earlier suit, O. S.467/1114, by the members of this branch for partition of the tarwad properties and recovery of the share due to the plaintiffs' branch. That suit was resisted by the members of the other branch, mainly on the ground that the 4 branches of the tarwad had become divided in interest by virtue of the Udampadi, Ext. A dated 25-2-1095, to which the representatives of all the branches were parties. The question for decision in that suit was whether the arrangement under Ext. A was only a maintenance arrangement, or whether it amounted to an outright partition. That question was ultimately decided by the Travancore High Court in the second appeals which arose from the said suit. Ext. I is copy of the common judgment of the High Court in those appeals. In that judgment it was definitely decided that the Udampadi, Ext. A, had the effect of an outright partition of the tarwad into 4 thavazhies or branches. As a consequence of that finding, the partition suit O.S. 467/1114 was dismissed. Since all the members of the tarwad were parties to that suit, the decision in Ext. I judgment must bind all of them and the present suit for reopening the question concluded by that decision is clearly unsustainable. As a consequence of that finding, the partition suit O.S. 467/1114 was dismissed. Since all the members of the tarwad were parties to that suit, the decision in Ext. I judgment must bind all of them and the present suit for reopening the question concluded by that decision is clearly unsustainable. Plaintiffs in the present suit tried to get over the effect of the decision in the prior suit by contending that most of the plaintiffs in the present suit who were minors at that time, were not properly represented by competent guardians validly appointed by court and that therefore the present plaintiffs are not bound by the decree in the earlier suit. The contesting defendants, on the other hand, maintained that all the minors in the earlier suit were properly represented by their duly appointed guardians and that the decree in that suit is binding on all the parties including the minors. The lower court accepted this position and overruled the contentions raised by the plaintiffs and held that the present plaintiffs are also concluded by the decision in Ext. I judgment which operates as res judicata as against the present plaintiff Plaintiffs' suit was dismissed for that reason.