Judgment:Plaintiffs appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Pakhat in O S. No. 29 of 1941. Though the suit is one for maintenance, the Questions that were tried in the Court below and which are to be decided here relate to the title of the contesting defendants to various properties which are claimed by them as their exclusive and separate properties. The quantum of maintenance depends on what the family properties are and for that purpose it has become necessary to decide whether the properties claimed by each defendant or each set of defendants are really his or their separate properties. The first plaintiff is the sister of the first defendant and the other plaintiffs are her children. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 16 are members of a tavazhi of which the first defendant is the karnavan. First plaintiff, defendants 1 to 6 and defendants 8, 9 and 10 are the children of their mother the 7th defendant. The 7th defendant and her children and grandchildren by the daughters are members of the tavazhi. As the eldest male member, the first defendant is the karnavan of the tavazhi.

There are thirteen items which are claimed in the plaint as being the family properties. The usufructuary right in item 1 and the third item are admitted by the defendants to belong to the family and the appellants have been given maintenance from the income of these properties. The first respondent has purchased the jenm right in the first item and claims that right to be his exclusive property. The present suit being only one for maintenance, the lower Court left open the question whether jenm right of item 1 belongs to the family or whether it is the exclusive property of the first defendant as the income of the property belongs to the family until redemption of the usufructuary mortgage. We think that this is a proper course to take. Items, 2, 4 and 11 comprise the right to the usufruct from certain trees on some lands and the income therefrom is negligible.

The fight centred round items 5 and 6 which are claimed by the first defendant, item 7 claimed by the third defendant, items 8 and 13 claimed by defendants 1 and 2 as their joint property, items 9 and 10 claimed by the second defendant and item 12 claimed by the seventh defendant the mother. These properties were found by the lower Court to belong to the several claimants. The plaintiffs appeal and the question is whether the lower Court’s finding that the properties are the separate properties of the several defendants is correct.

The seventh defendant had married one Kandar Mannadiar who was a member of a very rich tarwad. During the last years of his life he was also the karnavan of his tarwad. The seventh defendant and her children do not belong to his tarwad being members of a different tarwad. The attempt of every karnavan ordinarily is to save as much as he can from the properties of his tarward for the benefit of his wife and children who have no claim on his tarwad. It is said that Kandar Mannadiar made a gift of some properties to the first defendant and found the money for the puschase of several other items in dispute. It is urged that under Marumakkathayam law which governs the parties, if a husband or a father makes a gift to his wife and children or to his wife alone or to one or more of his children or when he makes a purchase in the name of one or others abovementioned, the presumption is that the property is held as the joint property of the tavazhi of the wife and his children by that wife, and that the presumption is to be rebutted by the person setting up an absolute right to the property by proof that the husband or father intended that he, she or they should take the property as his, her or their exclusive absolute property. It is also said that purchases made by a Karnavan or by the junior members of a Malabar Tavazhi or Tarwad should be presumed to be Tarwad properties until the contrary is established. The chief question involved in this appeal is whether

Click Here to Read the rest of this document