Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. The point to be decided in this second appeal is one which arises under the Malabar Tenancy Act. The appellants who are two sisters applied for the renewal of a kanam claiming to be kanamdars within the meaning of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The facts are that the elder brother of the appellants got a renewal of the kanam in 1917 in his name. The first respondent filed a suit against him and evicted him and the Malabar Tenancy Act does not apply to his case as the suit against him was filed on the 17th July, 1929.. The. appellants then claimed to be kanamdars, their case being that they were jointly entitled with their brother to the kanam amount. The District Munsif took no evidence upon this point being of the opinion that upon an interpretation of the Act the appellants were not kanamdars; and the lower Appellate Court took the same view. The appellants contention is that evidence should have been taken which would show that they were jointly entitled with their brother to the kanam amount as heirs of their father and are therefore entitled to a renewal of the kanam as persons jointly interested in it and that their brother was merel