Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. In this case defendants 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the appellants before me. One Pakran had gifted certain properties to his wife and children. A creditor of one of the sons named Kunhi Poker attached the share of Kunhi Poker, when the question arose as to what exactly was the nature of the interest created in the children of Pakran in the properties gifted by Pakran to his wife and children. The question came up for decision before a Full Bench of this Court Chakkra Kannan v. Kunhi Pokker [1915J 39 Mad. 17, and it was decided that the properties gifted by Pakran were tavazhi properties of his wife and children and were governed by the incidents of Marumakathayam Law, and that none of the sons of Pakran had any such rights in the properties as could be seized or sold in execution of a decree obtained against him by one of his creditors.

2. The present suit was instituted by one of the daughters of Path Umma, a sister of the said Kunhi Poker, for a declaration that the partition deed Ex. A entered into on 27th August 1919 between defendant 4, defendant 1 (now deceased) and the children of his elder brother, named Ahmad Kutti, defendants 2 to 9, was not