Judgment. The petitioners seek to revise the order of the Revenue Court, Thanjavur, dismissing their application under section 4-A (a) of Act XXV of 1955. as amended by Act XIV of 1956 for resumption from the respondent-tenant of half the extent of land in his possession for their personal cultivation. The petitioners with their father and two brothers formed a joint family and the respondent was let into possession of the lands in question while they were joint. In 1959 the petitioners and the other members of the family entered into a partition and in that partition the first petitioner was allotted 6 acres, 66 1/4 cents and the second petitioner 6 acres, 67¾ cents of land, including the land in the possession of the respondent. The total extent of the land owned by the family was 47 acres. The petitioners averred that since all the lands allotted to them were in the possession of tenants they are entitled under section 4-A to resume half the extent of land in the possession of the respondent. The respondent resisted the claim contending that the partition was not bona fide, that it was intended to circumvent the Act to be: promulgated for fixing the ceiling on land, that the properties belonging to the family exceeded 13 1/3 acres, and as such the petitioners are not entitled to resume the lands in his possession. The Revenue Court dismissed the application on the main ground that the partition deed had not been acted upon and that it was created “only to avert the ceiling Act to be promulgated soon” . The learned counsel for the respondent is not prepared to support the ground on which the application was dismissed. Nevertheless, he contended that the petitioners are not entitled to resume any extent of land by reason of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 4-A. Sub-section (1) of section 4-A enables a landlord to resume possession from any cultivating tenant for purpose of personal cultivation, lands not exceeding one half of the extent of lands leased out to the cultivating tenant. Sub-section (4) provides that “Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to entitle any landlord to resume possession, if on the day the Madras Cultivating Tenants, Protection (Amendment) Act, 1956, comes into force, he owns land exceeding 13 1/3 acres of wet land.....nor shall sub-section (1) be deemed to confer on the landlord a right to resume possession of a greater extent than that which along with the extent he is already in possession of either as owner or as tenant or as both would make up an extent of five acres of wet land.” Sub-section (5) is to the effect that “No person who is not entitled to resume possession under this section on the day the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection (Amendment) Act, 1956, comes in to force shall be deemed to be so entitled by reason of any subsequent change in his circumstances.” The contention of the respondent is that the petitioners’ family was the landlord that it owned more than 13 1/3 acres of land on the day on which the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection (Amendment) Act, 1956, came into force that if the family was not entitled for this reason to apply for resumption the petitioners are also equally not entitled to do so by bringing about a subsequent change in the circumstance by entering into a partition resulting in the extent of the lands they could claim being reduced to less than 13 1/3 acres. It is not disputed that the crucial date to be taken into consideration in determining whether the landlord was possessed of 13 1/3 acres of land is the date on which the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection (Amendment) Act, 1956, came into force. It is also not disputed that on the said date the family consisting of five members owned about 47 acres of land. But Sri K.S. Naidu for the petitioners urged that even on the date of the commencement of the Act, the proportionate share of each of the petitioners was less than 13 1/3 acres of land and therefore their claim does not come within the mischief of sub-section (5) as in fact, there was no change in the circumstances, the effect of partition being only to sever their joint possession and convert the same into separate possession. The lands in question were leased to the respondent by the family represented by its manager. The lands in question were leased to the respondent by the family represented by its manager. Until partition was effected no member of the family, though he could in a way claim to be a landlord predicate to himself any specific share of the lands. Consequently, it is not possible to uphold the petitioner’s contention that on the material date, they were landlords in respect of a definite share, proportionate to the number of coparceners then existing. The petitioners, if they were landlords, were landlords of all the family lands. They became landlords of a definite share only subsequent to, and as a result of the partition, in other words by bringing about a change or a severance as regards their joint status in respect of their family lands. This, in my view amounts to a subsequent change in their circumstances. I am therefore of opinion that sub-section (5) applies to the case and the petitioners are not entitled to resume possession under sub-section (1) of section 4-A. In this view, the order of dismissal has to be sustained. This petition therefore fails and the same is dismissed with costs. R.M. ------- Petition dismissed.