Judgment :- 1. What is "Sthreeswothu?" It is the creation of right in property, to a group among Marumakkathayees, the line of succession being restricted to the female species alone. While in a tavazhi, the male offsprings of a female member also get a share, "Sthreeswothu" denies them a share The equivalent of this in South Kanara is 'Pennumoola'. The Courts below have concurrently held that succession to property cannot be restricted to female descendants alone because this is a concept unknown to Marumakkathayam law. 2. The second appeal arises from a suit for partition among all the members of the tavazhi. The properties belonged to one Pokken. He executed a will on 18th March 1915. He stipulated that the properties shall belong only to the female members of the family and their female descendants. Can this direction in the will be upheld. 3. It is not disputed that Ext. Al stipulates devolution of property through female descendants alone. The question is whether the Court can recognise such a devolution. Reliance for this is placed on the observation by Sundara Aiyar in his Book'Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law', at page 237 to the following effect: "The peculiar tenure known as Strisothu in which only female descendants of the grantee are entitled to the property was set up in Mammad Hajee v. Mussan Hajee (1910) M.W. N. 398). It is not clear whether anything more than property held on Marumakkathayam system of joint ownership was intended to be meant thereby. At any rate, the Canara counterpart of it known as Pennumoola has been held to import no more. Such a tenure is of course unknown to Marumakkathayam law and is opposed to Tagore case. But this view does not preclude the existence of a customary tenure of that kind." With great respect, the above extract cannot be held to lay down the correct law. It was forcefully argued by the counsel for the appellants that a coparcenary in Hindu Law can exclude daughters from right to property, if the Christian daughters of Travancore can be denied right in their father's properties restricting it to Rs. 5000/- and Ezhavas in Travancore could have a tavazhi consisting of sons' sons also as members, why not the wishes of a testator limiting the "devolution of property in the female line alone be respected and enforced. 5000/- and Ezhavas in Travancore could have a tavazhi consisting of sons' sons also as members, why not the wishes of a testator limiting the "devolution of property in the female line alone be respected and enforced. If the law among Hindus, Christians and Ezhavas cannot offend public policy, why should this devolution alone offend public policy. There is force behind this emotive appeal. True, that the daughters were denied right in a coparcenary till man made law replaced the custom of yore and Smrithi. The enlightened Christian community in Travancore and. Cochin is still at peace with the limit of their daughter's right to a maximum of Rs 5000/-. Then why not permit a person to dictate the devolution of the property according to his wishes. This argument can appeal to a layman but not to a judge trained in law. To allow succession to property to be regulated by the wishes of the parties would be dangerous. Then law will lose its uniformity, judgments their persuasive and binding force and Courts their hold on their constituencies. Therefore, it is always safer to err on the side of law than to yield to emotion. 4. The question has to be viewed from a purely legal angle. The parties are admittedly Marumakkathayees. Marumakkathayam law recognise tavazhi with a common female ancestor and her children, consisting of herself and her denial descendants, both male and female, and children of her female descendants. A group under the Marumakkathayam law restricting devolution only to females is unknown. 5. This question fell for consideration before a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the decision reported in Md. Kunhi v. Packrichi Umma (AIR. 1924 Madras 28) It was held that a devolution excluding males cannot be countenanced in law and the concept of "Strisothu" is foreign to Marumakkathayam law. To the same effect is the decision reported in Kombi Avulla v. Kottayi Matha (41 Law Weekly 635). It was held that the constitution of an artificial tarwad consisting of a woman and her female descendants was invalid according to law. With great respect, I follow the principles laid down in the above two decisions and hold that where a document stipulates succession or devolution only to females, it is bad in law. 6. The decrees and judgments of the Courts below are therefore confirmed. The second appeal is dismissed with costs. With great respect, I follow the principles laid down in the above two decisions and hold that where a document stipulates succession or devolution only to females, it is bad in law. 6. The decrees and judgments of the Courts below are therefore confirmed. The second appeal is dismissed with costs. Send back the records forthwith.