JUDGMENT M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The 3rd defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant in this second appeal which has arisen in execution. Under the final decree in the case, 80 cents of plaint item No. 1 which is in the possession of the appellant has been allotted to the plaintiffs. In execution, admitting the decree holders' right to possession of those 80 cents, the appellant advanced a claim for compensation under Act XXIX of 1958 for his improvements on the property. The courts below have concurred in negativing that claim on the ground that he is not a tenant as defined in the Act, 2. Counsel contends that the appellant would come within the definition in S.2(d)(iii) of the Act, which reads thus : "2(d) "tenant" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions includes -- (i) ...................... (ii) ...................... (iii) a person who comes into possession of land belonging to another person and makes improvements thereon in the bona fide belief that he is entitled to make such improvements." The argument is that a cosharer's possession of a particular portion of the common property which, in the ultimate partition, falls to another's share is not of his share of the common property, but of the other's, and therefore he is within the definition. I do not agree. Until the partition is effected, either by common agreement or by final decree of court, the cosharer is entitled to possession of any or every portion of the common property and therefore of the particular portion which he chose to take possession of. In the period before partition, he cannot be found to have been in possession of property belonging to another sharer, but only of property belonging to himself though in conjunction with other cosharers. The finding of the court below that the 3rd defendant does not satisfy the definition of a tenant under the Act has therefore to be accepted. 3. Even under the Marumakkathayam law, which applied to the parties in the pre partition stage, a member in possession of undivided tarwad property as such is not entitled to claim improvements as against the other members at partition. There is no force in this second appeal which is therefore dismissed.