Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is by the 1st defendant and the only question canvassed before me on his behalf is the imposition of liability for mesne profits as against him by the courts below. The reason assigned therefore was that the 1st defendant was the Karnavan of the thavazhi of the plaintiff and defendants which inherited the properties in dispute on the death intestate of the 3rd defendant's daughter Janaki on 25.4.1115. By S.15 of the Nair Act of 1100 the properties devolved upon the thavazhi as heir to Janaki and by S.23 the 1st defendant had a right to be in possession and management until partition among the members of the thavazhi. The 1st defendant, no doubt, disclaimed possession and the 3rd defendant claimed to be in possession and to have appropriated the profits, though with the consent of the 1st defendant and others. The courts below did not find actual possession with the 1st defendant but thought nevertheless that he could not deny de jure control and consequent liability for mesne profits. The question is how far this conclusion of the courts below is right. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that whatever may be the position so far as an undivided thavazhi was concerned, there is no scope for imposing liability on the 1st defendant erstwhile Karnavan of a disintegrated thavazhi to which admittedly the plaintiff and defendants belonged. The argument is that S.18 as applied here must be deemed to refer only to the members of the thavazhi as taking the property as tenants in common without reference to an undivided Marumakkathayam group of Karnavan and junior members and that so far as the various sharers are concerned, no one sharer could be held bound to take up the management and conserve the property and its profits. The contrary position would involve the creation by statute of a group ownership with the ordinary incidents of Marumakkathayam holding inclusive of the head of the family with obligations fastened not perhaps without rights. And assuming it is possible how could there be the notion of mesne profits against the titular head until claim is made for partition. I agree. The contrary position would involve the creation by statute of a group ownership with the ordinary incidents of Marumakkathayam holding inclusive of the head of the family with obligations fastened not perhaps without rights. And assuming it is possible how could there be the notion of mesne profits against the titular head until claim is made for partition. I agree. I am fortified in coming to this conclusion by the decision in Neelakantan v. Varki 22 TLJ 1357 with reference to S.15 of the Nair Act, of 1088 and the later decision in A.S. No. 540 of 1953 with reference to S.17 of the Ezhava Act and following the 22 TLJ decision. 2. It follows therefore that the decisions of the courts below to the extent they impose a liability for mesne profits as against the 1st defendant, are unsupportable. They are therefore vacated. The appeal is allowed and the suit dismissed to that extent. There will be no order for costs in the appeal.