Judgment :- 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption. One Raman Raman of Kaleekal house had mortgaged the plaint property to the father of defendant 1 in 1066 and also executed in his favour two puramuries in 1078 and 1091. Ext. B is a copy of the mortgage deed, and Exts. C and D are copies of the puramuries of 1078 and 1091. In 1081 there was a partition in Raman Raman's tarwad. Ext. A is a copy of the partition deed. Raman Raman was the sole surviving member of his thavazhi, and therefore, all that he got in the partition (Ext. A) was only a life-interest in some properties, and he was grouped with another thavazhi which had female members and which, for the sake of convenience, will be referred to in this judgment as Branch 2. There were two other thavazhies with female members in the tarwad, and they will be referred to in this judgment as Branches 1 and 3. To these thavazhies also were allotted two male members, one for each thavazhi, who were given in the partition only life interest in certain properties. There was a provision in the partition deed that to the makkathayam properties of each branch as well as the self-acquisitions of the members of each branch the other branches and the members of the other branches will have no right at all and that the self-acquisitions of each member would devolve after his death on the members of his branch. The plaint property was a puduval registry in the name of Raman Raman; and, according to the plaintiffs, it was his self-acquisition. After Raman Raman's death a partition was effected by the members of Branch 2 in 1103 dividing the properties they got under Ext. A as well as the properties they got from Raman Raman under the above provision. In this partition (Ext. E) the equity of redemption of the plaint property fell to the share of one Parameswaran Nair, and he sold the same to the plaintiffs by two sale deeds, Exts. F and G, in 1119. On the strength of Exts. F and G the plaintiffs brought the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, for redemption of Ext. B mortgage and Exts. C and D puramuries. 2. Defendants 2 to 7 are members of branch 1. F and G, in 1119. On the strength of Exts. F and G the plaintiffs brought the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, for redemption of Ext. B mortgage and Exts. C and D puramuries. 2. Defendants 2 to 7 are members of branch 1. Defendant 2 contested the suit on behalf of that branch. He contended that the plaint property was not Raman Raman's self-acquisition, that Raman Raman was the karnavan of the tarwad and the plaint property was tarwad property, that in any case, after Raman Raman's death, the property devolved not merely on the members of Branch 2 but on the members of the entire tarwad including the members of branches 1 and 3, that under the provision in Ext. A relating to tarwad properties which were outstanding on mortgage at the time of the execution of that partition defendant 2 had redeemed Exts. B, C and D and was in possession of the plaint property, and that the suit was not therefore maintainable. He also claimed value of improvements in the event of the plaintiff being found entitled to redeem the mortgage. 3. Finding that the plaint property was tarwad property and not the self-acquisition of Raman Raman and therefore, under the terms of Ext. A, any member of the tarwad was competent to redeem the mortgage and that, under the said term, defendant 2 had already redeemed the mortgage and the suit was not therefore maintainable the trial court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court found that the plaint property was not tarwad property but Raman Raman's self-acquisition; but it held that, on the death of Raman Raman who was the sole surviving member of his thavazhi, his properties devolved not merely on the members of Branch 2 but on all the members of the tarwad including the members of branches 1 and 3 and that, therefore, branch 2 was entitled only to one-third of the equity of redemption. As a result of these findings it further held that Ext. E partition and Ext. As a result of these findings it further held that Ext. E partition and Ext. F and G sales were valid to the extent of one-third right in the plaint property and gave a decree to the plaintiff in the following terms: (a) "The plaintiff is directed to pay court fee on the market value of the equity of redemption of the 1/3 share of the plaint property before the lower court within one month from the date of the receipt of the records by that court, failing which the suit will stand dismissed. If the court fee is paid as stated above, he will be allowed to recover 1/3 share of the plaint property on deposit of I. Rs. 18 towards proportionate mortgage and purakkadom amounts and value of improvements, if any. (b) For division of the above share by metes and bounds and to ascertain the value of improvements on that share, the plaintiff is directed to apply for the issue of a commission at his own cost before the lower court. (c) Plaintiff will suffer his costs and will pay one-half of the costs of the 2nd defendant in both the courts. (d) The questions regarding mesne profits and value of improvements will be determined by the lower court at the time of the final decree. Against this decree, plaintiff has filed the second appeal claiming a decree for redemption of the whole property. 4. The lower appellate court's finding that the plaint property is not tarwad property and was the self-acquisition of Raman Raman has not been objected to by the respondents in this court and has become final. In Ext. A, which is attested by two witnesses and to which Raman Raman was a party, there is an express provision that the self-acquisitions of each person would devolve on his death only on the members of his branch and that the members of the other branches will have no right to them. Since Raman Raman was the last surviving member of his thavazhi and branches 1, 2 and 3 were related in equal degree to him, ordinarily, his self-acquisitions would devolve not merely on the members of branch 2 but on all the members of the tarwad including the members of branches 1 and 3. But in view of the express provision in Ext. But in view of the express provision in Ext. A referred to above, his self-acquisitions would devolve only on the members of branch 2. It is contended by the respondent's counsel that the provision in question has the effect of constituting a thavazhi artificially and is, therefore, invalid. The real effect of the provision is not to constitute a thavazhi but to provide for the devolution of the acquisitions of certain male members of the tarwad with the consent of the male members concerned. Under the Marumakkathayam Law every person has the right to dispose of his self-acquisitions as he likes; and therefore, in a partition deed it is open to him to agree to any provision as regards the devolution of his self-acquisitions after his death. Such a provision will operate only as a will of the person concerned, and if the legal requisition for the validity of a will are present in the partition deed the provision can be given effect to as the will of the person concerned (see Sankara Pillai v. Aiyyappan Nair 1953 KLT 749). In the present case the provision in question was freely agreed to by Raman Raman and he has signed the partition deed in the presence of two attestors to the document, and they also have signed it in his presence. In the circumstances, I hold that, after the death of Raman Raman, the equity of redemption of the plaint property devolved on the members of branch 2 alone and that the members of branches 1 and 3 have obtained no right at all to the same. It follows that Ext. E partition effected by the members of branch 2 and Exts. F and G sale deeds following Ext. E are valid in respect of the entire property and not merely one-third of it and that the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for redemption of the whole property. 5. For the reasons stated above, I set aside the decrees of the courts below and give a decree to the plaintiff for redemption and recovery of possession of the plaint property on depositing in court I. Rs. 53-13-3 as the mortgage amount due under Exts. B, C and D and such value of improvements as the execution court may determine to be due to the defendants on account of improvements made by the mortgagees and defendant 2. 53-13-3 as the mortgage amount due under Exts. B, C and D and such value of improvements as the execution court may determine to be due to the defendants on account of improvements made by the mortgagees and defendant 2. From the date of deposit of the mortgage amount and value of improvements to the date of recovery of possession of the property or up to three years, whichever is earlier, the plaintiff will be entitled to recover mesne profits from defendant 2 and the amount deposited by the plaintiff for redemption. The rate of mesne profits will be determined by the execution court. The second appeal is allowed as indicated above, but in view of their relationship I direct the parties to bear their respective costs throughout. Allowed.