Under Hindu Law, the self-acquired property of a Nambudri member devolves on his son, and the illom's head is not liable for the deceased's debts related to the self-acquired property.

Sankaran-Nair, J.

1. The plaintiff sues to re- cover a debt contracted by the deceased Parameawaran Nambu-dri, a junior member of an illom, of which the first defendant is the head. His wife and child are also defendants. Parameswaran Nambudri was in possession of a piece of land belonging to the family and it is found that he built thereon a house worth Rs. 1,000 out of his own funds and also planted pepper vines on the land. It was conceded in the lower Courts that the house which was built by the deceased out of his own funds though on land belonging to the family was his self-acquisition and the point is not raised by the memorandum of second appeal. We accordingly accept that finding. As to the utensils, etc., worth Rs. 500 they are in the house left by the deceased and were admittedly the property of the deceased, The first question is whether the self-acquisition of Parameswaran devolved on the family to which he belonged or on his son, the fourth defendant. All the previous decisions were reviewed in Chemnauthat Attekunnath Lakshmiamma v. Palakuzhu Thuppan Nambudri I.L.R. (1902) Mad. 662 and the learned Judge therein arrived at the conclusion that; the question is not concluded by authority and that there is no definite ruling of the High Court on the point As to the law applicable to the Nambudris, it has been held in a case in which evidence was taken about their usage, that "Nambudris are governed by the Hindu Law, except so far as it is shown to have been modified by usage or custom having the force of law," the probable origin of the special usage being either some doctrine of Hindu Law as it stood at the date of "their settlement" in Malabar "though now obsolete or some marumak-katayam" [Vdsudevan The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1883) Mad. 157. The Hindu Law is generally speaking the law laid down by the author of the Mitakshara. Under that law, though the interest of an undivided member in family property passes by survivorship to the other members of the family, his separate property devolves exclusively on his own heirs. The fourth defendant, the son of the deceased, takes the property of the latter under the Hindu Law to the exclusion of the other members of the family. It is true that-under the marumakkatayam law, we have decided that the self acquisition of a male in Malabar lapses to his tarwad but it has also been decided that in the case of a female, her children succeed to the exclusion of the tarwad, while in Canara under the same law under another name, where the theory is more strictly carried out in practice, the self-acquisitions of a male also descend to his own heirs. It may be noticed that in the earliest case Kamaran v. Ryru of which there is any report, it is stated, to be a very prevalent belief that the immediate juniors and not the tar-wad are those entitled to the self-acquisitions and that not one of the decisions including that of the full bench in Govindan Nair v. Sankaran Nair I.L.R. 1909 Mad. 35 is based upon usage but, on the other band, the majority of the Judges acted on the maxim "stare decisions. In these circumstances we cannot take it that any "marumakkatayam usage" would have influenced the family law of the Nambudris in this respect. Nor have we been referred to any doctrine of ancient Hindu Law which denied to the son the right of succession to the separate property of his father, which may have served as a basis for the existence, if any, of a different rule of law among the Nambudris. Under the old Hindu Law when self-acquisition was not recognised, no question could arise as to succession. When separate property or self-acquisition was recognised, the law of succession followed the nature of the property. The foundation of the right to take by survivorship is common interest and common possession., during the life-time of the deceased. It is possible there may have been a stage in the growth of Hindu law when a man who acquired any property had only the us