Govinda Menon J.- I am in entire agreement with my learned brother. Since he has discussed the facts of the case in extenso I do not wish to repeat them.

As it has been found that most of the properties now in dispute came into existence after Exhibit B.17, dated 1st December, 1918, it is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the first defendant that is the karnavan of the tarwad, must be deemed to have acquired them from out of the nucleus afforded by the properties which belonged to the tavazhi on that date, whereas the contention of the first defendant in the Court below and now repeated here by his legal representatives is that there was no sufficient nucleus out of which any acquisitions could have been made by the first defendant and unless the plaintiffs are able to show that there were surplus funds in the hands of the first defendant with which such properties could be acquired, the presumption must be that the even tenor of the documents namely, that the acquisitions belonged to the first defendant must prevail. This raises the general question of law with regard to the ownership of properties standing in the name of the karnavan of a tavazhi. That the first defendant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document