Krishnan, J.

1. The question argued in this second appeal is whether when a follower of Marumakkatayam Law makes a gift of property to his wife and children, she having already children living by a former husband, the donees take the property with the incidents of tarwad property such as impartibility attached to it or only as ordinary donees each entitled to an equal share as tenants-in-common.

2. Three cases have been cited to us as having a bearing on the question Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee (1892) I.L.R. 16 Mad. 201 : 2 M.L.J. 226 (F.B.), Chakkra Kannan v. Kunhi Pokker (1915) I.L.R. 39 Mad. 317 : 29 M.L.J. 481 (F.B.) and Imbichi Beevi Umma v. Raman Nair (1919) I.L.R. 42 Mad. 869 : 37 M.L.J. 220. It was laid down in Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee (1892) I.L.R. 16 Mad. 201 : 2 M.L.J. 226 (F.B.) that when a Marumakkatayam mans property is given to his wife and children without any expression of intention how they were to enjoy it, they must be held to have taken it with the incidents of property held by a tarwad. It will be rioted that in this case the wife and children constituted a tavazhi consisting of a woman and all her children and there was not the complica