Judgment :- 1. The petitioners are the same in these revision petitions; but the respondents are different. The petitioners are the children and wife of a deceased Mathai Anthraper; and the respondent are the tenants of Anthraper. Mathai Anthraper was not a small-holder; but the petitioners claim that, on the death of Anthraper, they became small-holders and hence are entitled to resume portions of the land in the possession of the respondents. This contention has been disallowed by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority and hence these revision petitions. A Single Judge felt that the question was not finally decided in Ammukutty v. Murugan (AIR. 1972 Kerala 132 =1972 KLT. 659) and placed the revision petitions before a Devision Bench. And the question involved is the same in the both the cases. 2. S. 2(52) defines small-bolder to mean a landlord who does not have interest in land exceeding a particular extent. We are not much concerned with the definition of this expression in these cases; but we have to note the Explanation to the provision. The Explanation reads: "For the purposes of this clause, a person who was in possession of or had interest in, land exceeding the limits specified in this clause immediately before the 18th December 1957, but such extent of land was reduced to the said limits or below by partition or transfer effected after the date mentioned above; shall not be deemed to be a small-holder; nor shall such partition or transfer entitle the allottee or transferee to exercise the rights of a small-holder in respect of the land allotted or transferred to him" 3. Now, the argument of the counsel of the petitioners is that, on the death, of Mathai Anthraper, the petitioners became tenants-in-common of the estate left by Anthraper, they being Christians, and, therefore, they are small-holders entitled to resume portions of the land in the possession of the respondents. The counsel of the petitioners has pointed out that the Explanation quoted above deals with only cases of partition or transfer after 18th December, 1957 and where, by a such partition or transfer, the person who was not a small-holder before that date is reduced to a small-holder, and also with allottees or transferees under such partition or transfer who are small-holders. In other words, the argument is that the Explanation covers only partition or transfer; and that, if, by succession, a person becomes entitled to a share in land, which share is equal to or within the limit for a small-holder, he is entitled to resume portions of the land from his tenants. Our attention has also been drawn to the decision referred to already at the commencement of the judgment. 4. The decision cited was a case where a Hindu, who was not a small-holder, died leaving his widow and children, and some of the children 61ed applications for resumption on the claim that they were small-holders. The learned judge refused the prayer, but observed: "All the legal representatives of deceased Ramakrishnan can join together and exercise their right of resumption rather than preferring separate applications on the ground that they are entitled only to fractional shares and in that view, they should be treated as small-holders." From this observation, it is sought to be argued that, if all the legal representatives of a deceased person who was not a small-holder apply together and if the share each one of them is entitled to in the estate left by the deceased is equal to or within the limit for a small-holder, the legal representatives are entitled to resumption. And it is also urged, on the basis of this observation, that, since all the legal representatives of Mathai Anthraper have together applied in these cases, the petitioners should be allowed to resume portions of the land from the tenants. 5. We do not think that this sentence can be interpreted in this fashion; probably, if a strict interpretation is given to the language in this sentence, the result claimed above might follow. But, we feel that such an interpretation may not be correct. In our opinion, in a case like this, where, by reason of succession, the legal representatives become entitled to smaller shares shares equal to or within the limit for a small-holder, they are not entitled to resumption, because they cannot be said to be in possession of only extents equal to or below the limit for a small-holder. In fact, each of such legal representatives is in possession of the whole estate left by the deceased: of course, the share of each is defined in the case of tenants-in¬common. In fact, each of such legal representatives is in possession of the whole estate left by the deceased: of course, the share of each is defined in the case of tenants-in¬common. in the sense that such share cannot be increased or reduced. Still, it cannot be said that they are interested only in extents equal to or below that of a small-holder. May be that, in the case of a joint tenancy or of a coparcenary, the shares are not defined as in the case of a common tenancy: the shares may be increased or reduced by the death or the birth of one. Still, the position may not be different. In our opinion, the legal representatives of such a deceased person will be small-holders only if the estate is partitioned and they are in possession of, or, in the language of the definition of small-holder, their "interest" is confined to, an extent equal to or below the extent for a small-holder. We may also add that this is probably the reason why the Explanation to S.2 (52) does not deal with succession, because, in a case of succession without partition or transfer, the benefit of a small-holder cannot arise to the legal representatives. 6. In this view, we are of opinion that the conclusion of the authorities below is correct. And we confirm the same and dismiss the civil revision petitions. However, we do not make any order regarding costs. A. N. K Dismissed.