1. The parties to this second appeal are Thiyyas of Calicut following the Makkathayam Law, The sons of defendant 2 are the appellants. In a suit instituted by the defendant 1 against the defendant 2 and his deceased brother Kelan (O. S. 1258 of 1916) he obtained a money decree against the defendant 2 personally and against defendants 3-5, the wife and children of the deceased Kelan. In execution of that decree he attached the family properties in possession of defendant 2. This second appeal arises out of the suit instituted by the appellants for a declaration that the properties attached for the decree in O. S. 1258 of 1916 are not liable to be attached and sold for that decree. The lower Courts overruled the appellants contention and dismissed their suit.

2. In second appeal it is argued that the suit property is impartible according to the Makkathayam Law governing the Thiyyas of Calicut and is not liable to be attached and sold. The question whether the property is impartible or not was not raised by the plaintiffs as a point for decision either in the pleadings or in the issues; but in support of the argument that the suit property is impartible the learned vakil for th