1. The Subordinate Judge is right in holding that in the absence of any proof of division it must be held that the family was undivided. It appears that the suit land was put in the possession of Jogamma for her maintenance.

2. She lived to a great age and the land was consequently in her possession for a number, of years. There is, however, nothing that can be called evidence to show that it was intended that the land set apart for her maintenance was not co be resumed on her death, and in the absence of such evidence the presumption is, that it was intended that the land was to be resumed.

3. We must accordingly hold that Jogamma bad no authority to deal with the land as she has done under Exhibit I and this second appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs.