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 was the karnavan of the group by. birth from the time the tavazhi separated from the main tarwad at least for the purpose of living has not been questioned.

The law is stated in P.R.Sundara Iyer’s “Malabar and Aliyasantana Law” at page 179, in the following terms:

“A karnavan who is in possession of family funds for instance would be presumed to have made all his acquisitions with diem for the benefit of the family and in his case the presumption would be very strong.”

The presumption referred to is that the properties should be deemed to be joint family properties. But if it is proved that there was no joint family property from which the disputed properties could have been acquired that fact would certainly rebut the presumption of family acquisition but it is not sufficient to show that the family funds alone cannot account for the acquisition. The learned author also states that when there is a mixing up of the family funds and separate funds the presumption is that the separate funds are merged in the family funds. This presumption does not ordinarily apply to acquisitions made by the junior members as is laid down to that effect in a series of decisions. It is stated in Mayne’s Hindu Law and Usage (nth Edition) at pages 992-993 that in such matters there cannot be a definite presumption either way but that the circumstances of the particular case have to be looked at to ascertain the nature of ownership. The view taken has been that property acquired by a junior member is to be presumed to be his own separate acquisition and that it lies on the party setting up, that it is tarwad property to prove that it was an acquisition on behalf of the tarwad. But where properties stand in the name of the karnavan and were acquired at a time when he was the de facto karnavan there is a natural presumption that the acquisitions were for and on behalf of the tarwad. The customary Marumakkathayam law has always been that when the karnavan in possession of tarwad property is found to acquire other properties it must be deemed that he acquired them on behalf of the tarwad. The same rule has been held to be applicable when an Anandravan is the manager of a branch tarwad and is in possession of funds belonging to such branch tarwad. See Mari Veetil Chattu Nair v. Mari Veetil Mulamparol.1 There is no difference in this matter so far as Aliyasanthana law also is concerned: Vide the decision in Kunhanna Shetty v. Timmaju2. Where it was seen that a manager of an Aliyasanthana family which was undivided acquired certain properties in his name it was held in Thimmakka. v. Akku3, that the onus was on the person who set up private ownership that the properties were acquired in fact out of private funds. Otherwise it will be presumed to belong to the joint family.

It has bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document