The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the title to the equity of redemption, considering evidence of management of thavazhi affairs, means of the thavazhi, customs and manners, and the conduct of the parties.

1. One Aliyattu Vila family gave a possessory mortgage of the properties scheduled to the plaint in the year 1088. There were several transactions with the mortgage right by way of sub-mortgage and assignment details whereof are unnecessary for the case. The rights of the Rib-mortgagee as also those of the mortgagees became ultimately vested in defendants 1 and 2. The mortgagor assigned the equity of redemption in favour of Lekshmi Amma the plaintiffs maternal grand mother in the year 1103, receiving, Rs. 89/- in cash and reserving the rest of the consideration for redemption of the aforesaid mortgage and for payment of certain other debts of the vendor. The sub-mortgage provided for payment of the land revenue by the sub-mortgagee from the date of the sub-mortgage. The sub-mortgage also provided for payment by the sub-mortgagee of the revenue that was then in arrears. An amount sufficient in that behalf was also reserved with the sub-mortgagee. On account of the default of the sub-mortgagee in the matter of payment of the land revenue, there was a sale under the Revenue Recovery Act in the year 1113, that is, two years after the death of Lekshmi Amma. The notices proceeding the sale including the notice of demand essential for its validity, were issued in the name of Lekshmi Amma, notwithstanding her death. By transfer, the rights of the purchaser under the revenue sale also became vested in defendants 1 and 2.

2. The suit was for redemption of the mortgage of the year 1088 and was brought by one of the grand-sons of Lekshmi Amma alleging that the equity of redemption is Lekshmi Amma's thavazhi property the

purchase having been made in her name while she was in management of the thavazhi properties and with thavazhi funds. Defendants 3 to 15 are the members of the thavazhi of whom the 3rd defendant is the plaintiff's mother who is the only issue of Lekshmi Amma the other member of the thavazhi being her children and grand-children.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 contended inter alia that the equity of redemption purchased by Lekshmi Amma was her own property as the consideration therefor was supplied by her husband and not thavazhi property as claimed on behalf of the plaintiff, that on Lekshmi Amma's death the 3rd defendant became solely entitled to the equity of redemption and that she has assigned her rights to defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 3 to 15 support the plaintiff.

4. The court below after an elaborate trial, decided that the equity of redemption purchased Lekshmi Amma was her thavazhi property ana entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant appeals.

5. The main question urged before us concerns the title to the equity of redemption, whether it is the self-acquired property of Lekshmi Amma or whether it is her thavazhi property. The point stressed by learned counsel for the appellant is that the onus of proof is on the plaintiff and that he has not discharged that burden. It is contended that the means of the thavazhi were not such as to leave a surplus from out of which the acquisition in question could have been made. Reliance is placed upon the Udampadi in the sub tarwad of the year 1091 under which Lekshmi Amma, as the Karnava Sthree of the thavazhi obtained paddy fields and parambas yielding an annual income of 140 paras of paddy and Rs. 50/-. It is urged that there were on that date, herself, her daughter and four grand children. The aforesaid income would have hardly sufficed even for their maintenance not to speak of any surplus to be saved. Reliance is also placed upon the fact that in the year 1081 Lekshmi Amma's husband gave a possessory mortgage of his property in her favour and the title itself was transferred to her subsequently. This was her separate property, the income therefrom though only between Rs. 10 and Rs. 50 per year was available to her.

6. It is urged on behalf of the appellant, that having regard to the customs and manners prevailing in Marumakkathayam tarwads, it must be