Judgment :- Ramakrishnan, J. Defendants in a suit for partition are the appellants in this appeal. The sole plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. 2. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the tharvad of the father of the plaintiff, one Kunhikrishnan Nair under Ext. Al, a deed of partition dated 11.3.1113 (ME). The tharavad got itself divided into three thavazhies. At the time of partition, the father of the plaintiff was the karanavan of the tharavad and there were altogether 17 members in the tharavad. The recitals in Ext. Al would show that the properties were allotted to the three thavazhies on a per capita basis taking note of the number of members belonging to each thavazhy. Further, one additional share was allotted to the then karanavan of the tharavad, namely, the father of the plaintiff taking note of the services rendered by him as karananvan of the tharavad. Thus, the thavazhy of Kunhikrishnan Nair, father of the plaintiff, though consisting of only four members including himself, was allotted properties equal to five shares together in one schedule. The suit out of which the appeal arises was filed by the son of Kunhikrishnan Nair claiming 2/5 share in the plaint schedule property on the basis that one share allotted to his father in addition to his one share as member of his thavazhy under Ext. Al is a separate property of his father. The suit was resisted by the defendants, who are the children of Lakshmi Amma, one of the sisters of Kunhikrishnan Nair and who was party No. 2 in Ext. Al. They resisted the claim contending that as son of late Kunhikrishnan Nair, plaintiff can only claim 1/4 share in the plaint share property as after partition his father is legally entitled to claim only 1/4 share of the property as one of the four members of the thavazhy. It was submitted that even though an additional share was allotted to the thavazhy taking note of the special services rendered by him as karanavan of the tharavad, so long as the additional share was allotted to the thavazhy jointly, Kunhikrishnan Nair could not have claimed any special right in the property allotted to the thavazhy. It was submitted that even though an additional share was allotted to the thavazhy taking note of the special services rendered by him as karanavan of the tharavad, so long as the additional share was allotted to the thavazhy jointly, Kunhikrishnan Nair could not have claimed any special right in the property allotted to the thavazhy. So long as there was no individual petition, allotment and separation of two shares to Kunhikrishnan Nair, neither Kunhikrishnan Nair nor plaintiff as his son can claim an additional share treating the same as one allotted to Kunhikrishnan Nair exclusively in a partition of tharavad into thavazhies. It was also contended that during the lifetime of Kunhikrishnan Nair, he has himself treated the property allotted to the thavazhy as per Ext. Al partition as thavazhy property alone. During is life time. He has not claimed any special right in the property allotted to the thavazhy. 3. The trial court, on a construction of Ext. Al and taking note of the other documentary and oral evidence in the case, upheld the contentions raised by the defendants and passed a preliminary decree for partition of the properties into four equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiff. It took the view that 5/18 share allotted under Ext. Al to the thavazhy consisting of plaintiffs father and three others enured to the benefit of all the members of the thavazhy equally even though 1/18 share was allotted to the father of the plaintiff taking note of the special services rendered by him. On appeal, the learned single judge reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for taking the view that the additional 1/18 share allotted to the thavazhy of plaintiff s father was intended to ensure exclusively to the plaintiffs father and as such plaintiffs father was entitled to claim two shares in the property allotted to the thavazhy. In other words, the learned single judge took the view that the plaintiffs father was entitled to claim an additional share allotted to the thavazhy as one allotted to him individually and exclusively. The question to be considered is how far the view taken by the learned single judge is sustainable in law. 4. The question has to be decided on the basis of a proper interpretation of the relevant recitals contained in Ext. The question to be considered is how far the view taken by the learned single judge is sustainable in law. 4. The question has to be decided on the basis of a proper interpretation of the relevant recitals contained in Ext. Al partition deed and the subsequent conduct of the parties. The recitals in Ext. Al partition deed would clearly indicate that the tharavad was divided into three thavazhies and the properties were allotted jointly to the three thavazhies in separate schedules. The recitals in paragraph 5 of the document will make it clear that the property separately allotted to the three thavazhies were directed to be possessed and enjoyed by the members of each thavazhy. It is evident from the document itself that the allotment of properties to the three thavazhies jointly in three schedules was after effecting the division of the properties belonging to the tharavad in 18 equal shares taking note of the total number of members as 17 and giving an additional share to the karanavan of the Tharavad towards the special services rendered by him to the tharavad. 5. In view of the indisputable fact that the partition effected as per Ext. Al was a partition of the tharavad into thavazhy and not an individual partition, whatever may be the reason for allotting an additional share to a particular thavazhy, members of that thavazhy are entitled to treat the entire property allotted to the thavazhy as property over which they have equal shares on the date of partition. Such property allotted to the thavazhy will enure to the benefit of the thavazhy jointly. Birth and death in the thavazhy may affect the shares of the members of the thavazhy. The fact that one share was allotted to a particular thavazhy in addition to the shares belonging to the members of that thavazhy on a per capita basis taking note of the services rendered by one of the members of that thavazhy as karanavan of the tharavad, which was partitioned into thavazhies, may not be a reason to hold that particular member as a member of that thavazhy had a special or exclusive right over such additional share when compared to the other members of the thavazhy. If the idea was to allot the additional share to him as his separate property, it could have been done so by allotting a particular share of the property in a separate schedule and mentioning it as his separate property. Not only no such separate allotment has been made, but the additional share was allotted to the thavazhy to which he belonged along with the property allotted to the thavazhy as such in a separate schedule. Such allotment with the general direction that property allotted separately to the thavazhies should be enjoyed by the members of the thavazhy separate from other thavazhies would, in our view, clearly indicate that no special right was intended to be conferred on Kunhikrishnan Nair in the matter of claiming right over the property allotted to his thavazhy. The division of the properties belonging to the tharavad into 18 shares on a per capita basis and providing an additional one share to the karanavan of the tharavad taking note of the services rendered by him was only for the purpose of division of properties into three shares and allotment of proportionate extent of property to the three different thavazhies. An out and out individual partition on a per capita basis was not intended is clear beyond doubt from a harmonious reading of the various recitals in Ext. Al. It is also clear from Ext. Al that even though the services rendered by the karanavan of the tharvad was taken note of for the purpose of allotting an additional share to him along with the properties allotted to other members of his thavazhy as property belonging to that thavazhy in a particular schedule, parties to the document were not having any intention to allot any particular share or item of property to the karanavan of the tharavad as his separate property exclusively. As such, taking note of the various recitals contained in Ext. Al partition deed and construing it harmoniously, the only reasonable conclusion possible in the circumstances of the case seems to be that the allotment of one additional share was to the benefit of the thavazhy and not to Kunhikrishnan Nair individually and exclusively. 6. The conduct of Kunhikrishnan Nair himself as karanavan of the tharavad after Ext. A-l partition, as discernible from Ext. B-1 renewal deed, would also support the above view which we have taken in the matter. While executing Ext. 6. The conduct of Kunhikrishnan Nair himself as karanavan of the tharavad after Ext. A-l partition, as discernible from Ext. B-1 renewal deed, would also support the above view which we have taken in the matter. While executing Ext. B-1 dated 28.4.1943, a renewal deed in respect of the properties allotted to the thavazhy under Ext. A-l, Kunhikrishnan Nair himself has described the entire property as property belonging to his thavazhy. He has not claimed any special right in the property. The fact that he has executed Ext. B-1 renewal deed in respect of the plaint schedule property describing it as property beginning to his thavazhy can safely be treated as a circumstance to hold that during his life time, he has never treated the property as one over which he had a special right There is neither any reliable documentary nor oral evidence to find that Kunhikrishnan Nair had at any time claimed any special right in the property. The recitals in Ext. A-5 is only to the effect that whatever rights he had under Ext. A-1 is being bequeathed to his son. The said recital also may not in any way help the plaintiff to establish his claim for division of the property into five shares and allotment of two shares to him. 7. In this view of the matter, we find it difficult to agree with the view taken by the learned single judge that as per Ext. A-1 there was an allotment of one additional share to Kunhikrishnan Nair personally. There is nothing in Ext Al to indicate such a separate and exclusive allotment of one share was made to Kunhikrishnan Nair individually. The division of the tharawad was into three thavazhies and the properties also were allotted to thavazhies and not to the individual members separately on an out and out per capita division and separation of all the members individually. Allotment of one additional share to one of the thavazhies in lieu of special services rendered by one of its members to the tharavad cannot be treated as an allotment to that particular member as his separate share. Allotment of one additional share to one of the thavazhies in lieu of special services rendered by one of its members to the tharavad cannot be treated as an allotment to that particular member as his separate share. Though it may be true that the special services rendered by Kunhikrishnan Nair as karanavan of the tharavad was taken note of at the time of partition for dividing the property into 18 shares instead of 17 and allotment of five shares to a thavazhy consisting of four members, it may not be legal and proper for that reason alone to come to a conclusion that one additional share was allotted to one of the members of that thavazhi independently and exclusively. Interpreting the provisions in the partition deed in that way would be going against the intention of the parties expressed in the various recitals in the document specifically making it clear that the tharavad is being divided into three thavazhies and the properties allotted to the three thavazhies should be enjoyed by the members of each thavazhy jointly. We find no justification to do so especially in view of the fact that Kunhikrishnan Nair himself had treated the entire property as property belonging to his thavazhy. As such, we would set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned single judge and restore that of the learned Subordinate Judge. The appeal will, therefore, stand allowed. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs.