Krishnan, J.

1. The question argued in this second appeal is whether, when a, follower of Marumakkathayam 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 tenant-in-common.

2. Three cases have been cited to us as having a bearing on the question: Kunhacha Umma v. Katti Mammi Hajee [1893] 16 Mad. 201, Chakra Kunnan v. Kunhi Pokker [1916] 39 Mad. 317, Imvichi Beevi Umma, v. Raman Nair [1919] 42 Mad. 869. It was laid down in 16 Mad., that when a Marumakkathayam 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 off property held by a tarwad. It will be noted that in this case the wife and children constituted a tavazhi consisting of a woman and all her children and there was not the complication of some of her children not being included as in the present case. The gift was to subsisting tavazhi and it was held following the principle laid do