JUDGMENT 1. With reference to the case Assan v. Pathumma I.L.R. 22 Mad. 494, the fact hat he property, the devolution of which was in question belonged to a person who was admittedly governed by Muhammadan law should not be overlooked. In such a case the presumption would be that the law applicable was the Muhammadan law, notwithstanding that the deceased owner of the inheritance was through his mother interested in tarwad property. 2. That case should not be understood as laying down that in every case betw en Muhammadans, in North Malabar, oven when they are members of a Marumakkatayam tarwad, the devolution of property is governed by the Muhammadan law until the contrary is shown. The question will, to a great extent, depend upon the circumstances of each case and the presumption would often be in favour of the Marumakkatayam rule of devolution, since we know that, in fact, that rule is followed in very many instances by such families. 3. In the present case District Judge has considered the question with reference to the enjoyment of the property and the surrounding circumstances and has arrived at the conclusion that the deceased owner of the property was governed by the Marumakkatayam rule. Consequently the conclusion that the self-acquired property of the deceased passed to the tarwad is right. 4. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.