The main legal point established was the interpretation of the will under Marumakkathayam Law, and the determination of whether the bequest was to the thavazhi as a whole or to the wife and children as tenants-in-common.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The parties are Marumakkathayees, and one Devaki Amma was their common ancestress. Devaki Amma's husband was one Vishnu Nambeesan, and they had eight children-five sons and three daughters. Defendants 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are their sons and defendant 6 one of the three daughters. The two other daughters, Nangeli Amma and savithri Amma, are both dead, and plaintiff 1, Janaki alias Nangeli Amma, is the only child of Nangeli Amma. savithri Amma has left no issue. Plaintiff 2 is plaintiff 1's minor son. Defendants 7, 8 and 9 are the sons of defendant 6, and defendants 10,16 and 20 her daughters. Defendants 11 to 15 are the minor children of defendant 10, and defendants 17 to 19 the minor children of defendant 16. Defendant 21 is defendant 20's minor son.

2. In 1903, when he had only five children and plaintiff 1's mother (Nangeli Amma) and savithri Amma and defendant 5 were not born, Vishnu Nambeesan executed a will, Ex. B3, bequeathing to his wife, Devaki Amma, and defendants 1 to 4 and 6 and the children who might subsequently be born of him to Devaki Amma the properties which he had obtained in his family partition; and the main dispute in this appeal is about the interpretation and effect of this will. After the execution of Ex. B3 and after the birth of plaintiff 1's mother and savithri Amma and Defendant 5, Vishnu Nambeesan died, and the plaintiffs' case is that after Vishnu Nambeesan's death the properties bequeathed under Ex. B3 belonged in common to Devaki Amma and her eight children, as tenants-in-common and each of them obtaining one-ninth right in the properties. In 1936 Devaki Amma and her eight children executed a partition deed, Ex. Al, whereby certain properties oat of those comprised in the bequest under Ex. B3 were allotted to the shares of defendants 1, 2 and 3, and they were given separate possession of those properties, and the remaining properties, namely, items 8 to 14 in the will, were allotted to the shares of Devaki Arnma and her remaining five children. subsequent to this partition, plaintiff 1's mother and savithri Amma died. Devaki Amma, the common ancestress, died in 1950 after both plaintiff 1's mother and savithri Amma had died. In 1952 plaintiffs brought the present suit for partition of the properties left in common by Ex. Al for the shares of Devaki Amma and her five children, defendants 4,5 and 6 and plaintiff 1's mother and savithri Amma. They alleged in the plaint that Devaki Amma and defendants 4,5 and 6, plaintiff 1's mother and savithri Amma had each one-sixth right in those properties and the plaintiffs claimed partition and recovery of possession of (1) the one-sixth share which belonged to plaintiff 1's mother and which devolved on them by right of inheritance after her death, (2) one-fifth of the one-sixth share which belonged to savithri Amma on the ground that after savithri Amma's death her share devolved on Devaki Amma and defendants 4, 5 and 6 and plaintiff 1's mother, and plaintiff 1 had obtained by right of inheritance the share which her mother had, and (3) 2/23 of the one-sixth share which belonged to Devaki Amma on the ground that after Devaki Amma's death her share in the properties had devolved under the provisions of the Marumakkathayam Act on plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 to 21. Almost all the defendants entered appearance in the lower court and filed written statements. so far as the interpretation and effect of Vishnu Nambeesan's will were concerned, defendants 1 to 5 supported the plaintiffs' case. Defendants 6 to 22, on the other hand, contended that the bequest under Ex. B3 was not to Devaki Amma and her eight children alone but to Devaki Amma's thavazhi as a whole, that Devaki Amma and her children were not, therefore, entitled to take the bequeathed properties as tenants-in-common and each of them had no separate rights to the properties, that Devaki Amma's thavazhi obtained the properties under the wil