Judgment :- 1. The facts necessary to resolve the dispute in this case lie within a narrow compass and are not in dispute. The property sought to be partitioned in the suit instituted by the appellant-plaintiff originally belonged to one Kutty Amma Lekshmi Amma, who died leaving as heirs only two sons, namely, Narayana Pillai, the father of the plaintiff, and Pachu Pillai, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. The short case put forward by the plaintiff was that as heir to, the estate of Narayana Pillai he is entitled to a one-half share in the suit property. Though the trial court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff the lower appellate court dismissed the suit on the ground that Narayana Pillai did not leave a heritable estate in the suit property. 2. Both sides agreed before me that both Lekshmi Amma, the original owner of the property, and her son Narayana Pillai died between 1088 and 1100 M.E the two years in which statutes were enacted regulating the succession to properties owned by marumakkathayees. It is also not disputed before me that the right of succession to the property of Lekshmi Amma is to be adjudged on the basis of the Travancore Nair Regulation, 1088. It is again common case that the suit property was the separate property of Lekshmi Amma. S.15 of the Nair Regulation of 1088 is in the following terms: "On the death of a Nair female, her self-acquired or separate property shall devolve on her own Thavazhee, and, in the absence of members in such Thavazhee, on the Thavazhee of her mother and so on in order, on the Thavazhees of her female ascendants, the nearer excluding the more remote; and, on failure of all heirs in the descending or ascending Female line, such property shall devolve on her husband, if he is a Nair." By the force of that provision it is clear that the suit property which was the separate property of Lekshmi Amma will devolve upon her own tavazhee. S.2 of the Regulation defines tavazhee of a female in the following terms: "'Thavazhi of a female' means a group of persons consisting of that female and her issue how-low¬so-ever in the female line, or such of that group as are alive." As referred to earlier Lekshmi Amma died leaving as heirs only Narayana Pillai and Pachu. S.2 of the Regulation defines tavazhee of a female in the following terms: "'Thavazhi of a female' means a group of persons consisting of that female and her issue how-low¬so-ever in the female line, or such of that group as are alive." As referred to earlier Lekshmi Amma died leaving as heirs only Narayana Pillai and Pachu. Pillai and not any daughter or descendants of daughter. The expression "or such of that group as are alive" will certainly apply to Narayana Pillai and Pachu. Pillai, who undoubtedly were members of Lekshmi Amma's tavazhi. The contention of the appellant is that even if Pachu. Pillai and Narayana Pillai were members of Lekshmi Amma's tavazhi they inherited the property as tenants-in-common. In other words, the self-acquired property of Lekshmi Amma cannot be treated as the sub-tarwad property of her two sons, Narayana Pillai and Pachu. Pillai The express provisions of the statute are not helpful in resolving that dispute. It should, however,be remembered that in this case succession opened prior to the Nair Act of 1100, which made specific provisions regarding the nature of the property inherited. Certain earlier decisions of the Travancore High Court took the view that under the old Marumakkathayam law the self-acquisitions of a member of a marumakkathayam tarwad lapsed to the entire tarwad. A different note was, however, struck in 22 TLR 278 wherein it was held that the property will go to the sub-tarwad. It was further held that if a female member of a Malabai tarwad acquires property, so far as that property is concerned, she forms the stock of descent and that property at once becomes the sub-tarwad property of which she is the ancestress. So according to the law laid down in that decision the property is inherited by members of the tavazhi as sub-tarwad property. It was after the decision rendered in 22 TLR 278 that Regulation.1088 was enacted. So at the time when the regulation came into force the prevailing law was to the effect that the self-acquisition of a female member of a Malabar tarwad constituted sub-tarwad property as far as her tavazhi is concerned. There is nothing in the Regulation of 1088 to indicate that the concerned authority intended to lay down any different principle. So at the time when the regulation came into force the prevailing law was to the effect that the self-acquisition of a female member of a Malabar tarwad constituted sub-tarwad property as far as her tavazhi is concerned. There is nothing in the Regulation of 1088 to indicate that the concerned authority intended to lay down any different principle. I am, therefore, of the view that Narayana Pillai and Pachu Pillai inherited the suit property as their sub-tarwad property and on the death of Narayana Pillai, Pachu Pillai, the surviving member became exclusively entitled to the property. It cannot, therefore, be held that Narayana Pillai had a heritable and transferable share in the suit property at the time of bis death, and consequently, the plaintiff cannot claim any share in the suit property. I dismiss this appeal. No costs. Dismissed.