Judgment :- 1. These two Second Appeals are by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 333 of 1121 and O.S. No. 115 of 1119, respectively, on the file of the Munsiff of Mavelikara. The parties may be referred to hereinafter by their position in O.S. No. 333 of 1121. Both the suits were for redemption of the same mortgage evidenced by Ext. B in O.S. No. 333. The mortgagee assigned his rights in favour of defendants 1 to 5 who are members of the tarwad of the mortgagors. The suit property was the separate property of the mortgagor, Narayanan Padmanabhan. He died on 28-6-1089 leaving behind him the 6th defendant his widow, the 7th defendant daughter through her, and the 8th defendant a daughter by another wife. Defendants 6 and 7 assigned their rights to the plaintiff in O.S. No. 333 of 1121 as per Ext. A dated 1-11-1118, and in O.S. No. 333 of 1121 he claims to redeem the mortgage. Earlier, the 8th defendant has instituted another suit O.S. No. 115 of 1119 for redemption of the same mortgage. The defence in both the suits has been that Narayanan Padmanabhan died before 1088 and therefore his property devolved on his tavazhi and the plaintiffs in both the suits did not have any right in the suit property. The Munsiff decreed O.S. No. 115 of 1119 finding that Narayanan Padmanabhan died in 1089 only, undivided from his tarwad, and therefore half of the property devolved on his marumakkathayam heirs and the other half on his daughter. That decree was made on 15-7-1124. Subsequently O.S. No. 333 of 1121 came up for decision on 2-6-1129 and the Munsiff decreed the suit allowing redemption of one-half the property by the plaintiff therein. Thus, as between the two plaintiffs the entire property was allowed to be redeemed by the trial court. The 4th defendant in O.S. No. 115, who was the 1st defendant in the other suit, took the matter in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Mavelikara, who found the date of death of Narayanan Padmanabhan not been proved to have been after the commencement of the Travancore Act 1 of 1088 and therefore dismissed both the suits. Hence this Second Appeal by the respective plaintiffs. 2. Ext. D in O.S. No. 333 of 1121 (another copy of the same is Ext. Hence this Second Appeal by the respective plaintiffs. 2. Ext. D in O.S. No. 333 of 1121 (another copy of the same is Ext. B in O.S. No. 115 of 1119) is the certificate of death issued by the Taluk Registrar of Births and Deaths, being art abstract of the relevant entry in the Register of Births and Deaths kept in the Village Office, Chennithala. It shows that Padmanabhan, aged 49, of Kaimal Veettil Vadakkethil house, Tripperumthara Kara, Chennithala Village, Mavelikara Taluk, Quilon District, died on the 28th Makaram 1089. The description is of the father of defendants 7 and 8 and tallies with the description of the mortgagor in the suit mortgage deed. Pw. 2 who is admittedly the younger brother of the above-said Narayanan Padmanabhan deposed that his brother Padmanabhan died in 1089. Except making a futile challenge of his testimony by cross-examination, no evidence was let in by the defence to prove the date of death of Padmanabhan. Dw.1 was not born in 1089 and therefore his testimony could only be hearsay. The trial court, accepting the evidence of Pw. 2 corroborated by the official certificate of death, held Narayanan Padmanabhan to have died in 1089. The Additional District Judge relying on a ruling in 25 T.L.J. 1250 held that the Village Register of Births and Deaths was not kept under any statute and therefore could not be relied on and held the date of death not been proved in the case. 3. Shri. T.K. Kurian, counsel for the appellant referred to Travancore Land Revenue Manual, Vol. I, Page 29, where in the Revised Rules for the Destruction of Records made on the 28th October 1911, as amended on the 24th August, 1912 (9-1-1088 M.E.) mention is made of "Register of Births and Deaths" among the records to be kept permanently by the Village Offices. These rules have been passed under the Destruction of Records Regulation, III of 1057 and have therefore statutory force. A record directed to be maintained by an executive order cannot, without positive proof, be deemed to have been directed by a statute to be preserved permanently. These rules have been passed under the Destruction of Records Regulation, III of 1057 and have therefore statutory force. A record directed to be maintained by an executive order cannot, without positive proof, be deemed to have been directed by a statute to be preserved permanently. Though the particular statute under which the Register of Births and Deaths was directed to be kept in the Village Office is not shown in this case, in view of the reference in Regulation III of 1057, and the rules framed thereunder, I presume that there must have been a statutory regulation making it incumbent on the Village Officers to keep such a register. 4. Reliance was also placed by counsel on the Viruthi Rules dated 4-3-1074, published on page 776 of Vol. I of the Travancore Acts and Proclamations, R.21 of which reads: "They (the viruthi holders concerned) shall attend the Proverthy Cutchery (Village Office) every working day and furnish information regarding births and deaths to the Proverthy official who is deputed to keep the register of vital statistics". This is another statutory reference to a Register of Births and Deaths being kept by the Village Officers. 5. No reference was made in 25 T.L.J. 1250 to any of these statutory provisions when their Lordships referred to the Register of Births and Deaths kept by Village Officers to be without statutory authority. I am certain that these provisions were not brought to the notice of their Lordships in that case. A record referred to in statutes must be presumed to be maintained by authority. 6. In view of the certificate of death issued by the Taluk Registrar of Births and Deaths, the deposition of Pw. 2 who is the direct younger brother of the deceased, and the absence of any counter-evidence on the matter, I accept the trial judge's finding that the date of death of Narayanan Padmanabhan was the 28th Makaram 1089. 7. There is no evidence in this case that Narayanan Padmanabhan was divided from his tarwad. The finding in O.S. No. 115 of 1119 is that he died undivided from his tarwad. The presumption has always been that a member of the tarwad continues in the tarwad, unless separation is proved in the case. I would therefore accept the finding that Narayanan Padmanabhan, at the time of his death, was not divided out form his tarwad. The finding in O.S. No. 115 of 1119 is that he died undivided from his tarwad. The presumption has always been that a member of the tarwad continues in the tarwad, unless separation is proved in the case. I would therefore accept the finding that Narayanan Padmanabhan, at the time of his death, was not divided out form his tarwad. It then follows that under S.12 of Act I of 1088 his separate properties devolved on his Marumakkathayam and Makkathayam heirs in equal moieties. The equity of redemption in the suit property must therefore be held to have vested in a half share on defendants 1 to 5 who were his marumakkathayam heirs, and the remainder on defendants 6 and 7 on one part and the 8th defendant on the other in equal moieties. 8. There will therefore be a decree for redemption of 1/4 of the suit property in O.S. No. 115 of 1119 and a decree for redemption of another 1/4 in O.S. No. 333 of 1121. This will be treated as a preliminary decree. The court below will divide the property by metes and bounds and then ascertain the improvements in the share that is allotted to the respective plaintiffs in O.S. No. 115 of 1119 and O.S. No. 333 of 1121 and pass a final decree fixing the redemption price payable in each suit. As all the parties in the suit advanced exagerated cases, they are directed to suffer their respective costs throughout.