M. Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The 2nd plaintiff, whose suit to redeem a kanom has been concurrently dismissed by the courts below, has preferred this second appeal. The 1st defendant, upon whom the tenancy has devolved, admits the kanom, but contends that the 2nd plaintiff is not a landlord entitled to resume the property from him. The courts below have found that the plaintiff needs the land bona fide for cultivation for his maintenance; but dismissed the suit because S.25 of the Malabar Tenancy Act permitted only the landlord to resume property from a tenant and the landlord in regard to the suit kanom is the tarwad, and not the 2nd plaintiff who is only a member thereof. Hence this appeal.

2. The question therefore is of the capacity of a member of the tarwad to resume tarwad property outstanding with strangers on a lease or a kanom. The courts below have assumed that the proprietary right in the suit property is vested in the legal entity known as 'the tarwad' and therefore the plaintiff, who was not the karnavan, cannot claim to recover the same. The appellant challenges in this appeal the correctness of that proposition.

3. As observed by Sankarasubba Iyer J., in 1944 TLR 847