1. The second and third plaintiffs in a suit for cancellation of a decree and certain deeds are the appellants here. They are the sons of the deceased first plaintiff. When this appeal came up for hearing before justice Joseph Vithayathil it was referred to a Division Bench, the order of reference being as follows:

"This second appeal raises a question of law of considerable importance. The question is whether in case of an acquisition by a Marumakkavazhi ezhava and his sister before the date of the Ezhava Act (Travancore) with funds that belonged to their father the presumption will be that they acquired the property as tenants-in-common or for the sub-tarwad constituted by them. I think that it is desirable that the question is considered by a Division Bench. I, therefore, refer this second appeal to a Division Bench."

The circumstances leading to this appeal are as follows: The plaint schedule properties belonged to one Krishna Panicker. He had executed a mortgage in 1069. On 29.3.1080, Ext. A, superior mortgage, was executed in favour of the first defendant and his sister, the first plaintiff they being directed to redeem the prior mortgage. A release deed was obtain