The main legal point established in the judgment is the mode of devolution of separate property under the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1933 and the determination of whether the heirs inherited the property as joint tenants or tenants in common.

1. The only question relevant for decision in this Second Appeal is whether the two sons. who inherited the separate property of a Marumakkathayi female. who died either in 1922 or in 1933. took the property as joint tenants with the incidents of survivorship or whether they took it as tenants in common? The learned Munsiff found that they took the property only as tenants in common. but in appeal the learned Subordinate Judge found otherwise. Hence this Second Appeal by the plaintiff.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition of plaint B schedule property. That property belonged in Jenm to Manjeri Kovilakam. Deceased Kalliani Amma obtained leasehold right over the property under Ext. Bl. Both the courts below concurrently found that the right obtained by Kalliani Amma under Ext. BI was her separate property. That finding was not challenged and it stands.

3. The plaintiff contended that Kalliani Amma died in 1933 whereas the contention of the first defendant was she died in the year 1922. There was no conclusive evidence on either side regarding the date of her death. With the available evidence and with the help of the legal presumptions. both the courts below concurrently found that she died in the year 1922 as contended by the defendants. Even though that finding was challenged by the appellant-plaintiff. there is nothing to substantiate his contentions. Therefore. the concurrent finding that Kalliani Amma died in the year 1922 will have to stand.

4. It is an admitted fact that at the time of her death. Kalliani Amma left as her heirs only two sons. namely. first defendant Sankaran Nair and deceased Govindan Nair. She had no female heirs. Third defendant is the widow of Govindan Nair. Plaintiff and second defendant are their children. There was a contention for the first defendant that the rights. if any. of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 over the plaint schedule property has been lost by limitation and adverse possession. That contention also was concurrently found against by the courts below and it was not challenged before us at the time of arguments. That is why we said that the only question for determination in this Second Appeal is as to the mode of devolution of the property of Kalliani Amma

5. The case of the plaintiff-appellant was that Govindan Nair and first defendant Sankaran Nair took the property as tenants in common. each having half right. Admittedly. Govindan Nair died in the year 1950. Plaintiff would say that himself and defendants 2 and 3 are entitled to the half right of Govindan Nair. On the other hand. the contention of the first defendant was that himself and Govindan Nair took the property as their tavazhi property and that after the death of Govindan Nair in the year 1950 first defendant got the property exclusively by survivorship. On this basis it was contended that the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are not entitled to any right over the property.

6. The trial court found that deceased Govindan Nair and the first defendant took the property as tenants in common. each having half right and hence after the death of Govindan Nair his half share devolved on plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 by succession under S.19 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act. 1933. But the learned Subordinate Judge disagreed with the finding of the Munsiff in this respect. Relying on the decision reported in Krishnan v. Damodaran (ILR 38 Madras 48). the learned Subordinate judge held that the two sons took the property as their tavazhi property and that after the death of Govindan Nair. the property exclusively devolved on the first defendant by survivorship. On that basis it was found that plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are not entitled to any share in the property. This is the finding that is challenged in appeal.

7. We are of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge went wrong in his finding in this respect. It appears that the learned Subordinate Judge. even after finding that the property exc