Judgment :- 1. The only question relevant for decision in this Second Appeal is whether the two sons. who inherited the separate property of a Marumakkathayi female. who died either in 1922 or in 1933. took the property as joint tenants with the incidents of survivorship or whether they took it as tenants in common? The learned Munsiff found that they took the property only as tenants in common. but in appeal the learned Subordinate Judge found otherwise. Hence this Second Appeal by the plaintiff. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition of plaint B schedule property. That property belonged in Jenm to Manjeri Kovilakam. Deceased Kalliani Amma obtained leasehold right over the property under Ext. Bl. Both the courts below concurrently found that the right obtained by Kalliani Amma under Ext. BI was her separate property. That finding was not challenged and it stands. 3. The plaintiff contended that Kalliani Amma died in 1933 whereas the contention of the first defendant was she died in the year 1922. There was no conclusive evidence on either side regarding the date of her death. With the available evidence and with the help of the legal presumptions. both the courts below concurrently found that she died in the year 1922 as contended by the defendants. Even though that finding was challenged by the appellant-plaintiff. there is nothing to substantiate his contentions. Therefore. the concurrent finding that Kalliani Amma died in the year 1922 will have to stand. 4. It is an admitted fact that at the time of her death. Kalliani Amma left as her heirs only two sons. namely. first defendant Sankaran Nair and deceased Govindan Nair. She had no female heirs. Third defendant is the widow of Govindan Nair. Plaintiff and second defendant are their children. There was a contention for the first defendant that the rights. if any. of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 over the plaint schedule property has been lost by limitation and adverse possession. That contention also was concurrently found against by the courts below and it was not challenged before us at the time of arguments. That is why we said that the only question for determination in this Second Appeal is as to the mode of devolution of the property of Kalliani Amma 5. That contention also was concurrently found against by the courts below and it was not challenged before us at the time of arguments. That is why we said that the only question for determination in this Second Appeal is as to the mode of devolution of the property of Kalliani Amma 5. The case of the plaintiff-appellant was that Govindan Nair and first defendant Sankaran Nair took the property as tenants in common. each having half right. Admittedly. Govindan Nair died in the year 1950. Plaintiff would say that himself and defendants 2 and 3 are entitled to the half right of Govindan Nair. On the other hand. the contention of the first defendant was that himself and Govindan Nair took the property as their tavazhi property and that after the death of Govindan Nair in the year 1950 first defendant got the property exclusively by survivorship. On this basis it was contended that the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are not entitled to any right over the property. 6. The trial court found that deceased Govindan Nair and the first defendant took the property as tenants in common. each having half right and hence after the death of Govindan Nair his half share devolved on plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 by succession under S.19 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act. 1933. But the learned Subordinate Judge disagreed with the finding of the Munsiff in this respect. Relying on the decision reported in Krishnan v. Damodaran (ILR 38 Madras 48). the learned Subordinate judge held that the two sons took the property as their tavazhi property and that after the death of Govindan Nair. the property exclusively devolved on the first defendant by survivorship. On that basis it was found that plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are not entitled to any share in the property. This is the finding that is challenged in appeal. 7. We are of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge went wrong in his finding in this respect. It appears that the learned Subordinate Judge. even after finding that the property exclusively belonged to Kalliani Amma. went under the wrong impression that the property belonged to a tavazhi consisting of Kalliani Amma and her two sons. This is evident from Para.11 of the judgment. It appears that the learned Subordinate Judge. even after finding that the property exclusively belonged to Kalliani Amma. went under the wrong impression that the property belonged to a tavazhi consisting of Kalliani Amma and her two sons. This is evident from Para.11 of the judgment. wherein it is stated: "The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that after the death of Kalliani [Amma there was no female member in the tavazhi and so the first defendant and Govindan Nair cannot constitute a tavazhi. This argument cannot be [accepted. Kalliani Amma and her two sons constituted a tavazhi. After the death of Kalliani Amma the remaining members. viz.. the sons. can constitute a tavazhi. So the argument of the learned counsel that after the death of Kalliani Amma there was no tavazhi cannot be accepted. On the death of Kalliani Amma the property devolved on her tavazhi consisting of Govindan Nair and Sankaran Nair and Govindan Nair died in 1950. So legal heirs of Govindan Nair are not entitled to any share in the plaint B schedule property." It was further stated by him that he arrived at this conclusion on the basis of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Krishnan v. Damodaran reported in ILR 38 Mad 48. 8. There is no question of considering the existence of a tavazhi consisting of Kalliani Amma and her two sons so far as inheritance to the plaint schedule property is concerned because the property was not the tavazhi property of Kalliani Amma. but her own separate property. The question of tavazhi arises only on her death. If Kalliani Amma died in the year 1933. after the commencement of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act. there would not have been any room for doubt regarding the devolution because it will definitely devolve on the children. But so far as this case is concerned. according to the concurrent findings. Kalliani Amma died in the year 1922. before the commencement of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act. at a time when the customary Marumakkathayam law was in force. As held in Krishnan v. Damodaran (ILR 38 Madras 48). the devolution of the property in such a case must be to the tavazhi. It appears that the learned Subordinate Judge misunderstood the scope and ambit of ILR 38 Madras 48 as well as the mode of devolution of property in the case. 9. As held in Krishnan v. Damodaran (ILR 38 Madras 48). the devolution of the property in such a case must be to the tavazhi. It appears that the learned Subordinate Judge misunderstood the scope and ambit of ILR 38 Madras 48 as well as the mode of devolution of property in the case. 9. Krishnan v. Damodaran (ILR 38 Madras 48) is a Full Bench decision. The question referred to the decision of the Full Bench was whether the self-acquisition of a female member of a tarwad would. on her death. lapse to the tarwad of which she dies a member. or whether they would descend to her nearest heirs or her tavazhi. A reading of that decision will show that the word tavazhi was used in a loose sense in contradistinction with tarwad. 10. By the decision reported in Govindan Nair v. Sankaran Nair (ILR 32 Madras 351) and other decisions. it was held that on the death of a male member the tarwad gets the property as heir and not by survivorship. But the question of inheritance of the self-acquired property of a Marumakkathayi female still remained as a controversy. That is the reason why the above question happened to be referred for the decision of the Full Bench and consequently the decision reported in ILR 38 Madras 48 was rendered. From the separate judgments rendered by the three judges. who constituted the Bench. it is seen that they were considering the question whether the self-acquisition of a female member of a Marumakkathayam tarwad. on her death. lapse to the tarwad of which she dies a member. or whether they would descend to her nearest heirs or her tavazhi. His Lordship Sir Ralph Sillery Benson. Officiating Chief Justice. gave his opinion as follows: "My answer to the reference is that the self-acquisitions of a female member of a Marumakkathayam tarwad on her death do not lapse to the tarwad of which she dies a member. but descend to her tavazhi. i.e.. to her issue. if she has any. and. if not. then to the tavazhi to which she would. in that case. belong according to the customary law of Malabar". 11. Sankaran Nair. J. observed: "My reply to the reference is that the self acquisitions of a female do not lapse to her tarwad but they descend to her tavazhi; if she has issue. if she has any. and. if not. then to the tavazhi to which she would. in that case. belong according to the customary law of Malabar". 11. Sankaran Nair. J. observed: "My reply to the reference is that the self acquisitions of a female do not lapse to her tarwad but they descend to her tavazhi; if she has issue. the tavazhi is composed of that issue; if she has no issue. her mother and her descendants form her tavazhi". 12. Sundara Iyer. J. who wrote the leading judgment held: "My answer to the question referred to the Full Bench is that the self-acquisitions of a female would descend to her nearest heir's under the Marumakkatayam law". 13. From that decision it follows that in such a case the self-acquisition of a female would descend to her nearest heirs or to her tavazhi. Definitely. it is by inheritance and not by survivorship. So far as this case is concerned. the members of the tavazhi of Kalliani Amma. at the time of her death were only her two sons. There was no female. Under the Marumakkthayam system of inheritance descent is traced only through females and not through males. When the surviving heirs of Kalliani Amma were only her two sons. there is no question of themselves inheriting the property as tavazhi. There is no female for the purpose of constituting and continuing the tavazhi. Therefore. by no stretch of imagination. it could be said that they inherited the property as tavazhi with the incidents of survivorship. Of course. it is true. that this aspect of the matter did not come up for consideration in the above said decision reported in ILR 38 Madras 48 because such a contingency did not arise there. But it is only common knowledge that two surviving males by themselves cannot constitute or continue a tavazhi. If there is no question of inheriting the property as tavazhi. the position is that the two sons take individually. They inherited the property as the nearest heirs of the deceased Marumakkathayi female. It is beyond doubt that they take the property as tenants in common. There is no question or survivorship. If so. the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in his finding that Govindan Nair and Sankaran Nair took the property as their tavazhi property and after the death of Govindan Nair. It is beyond doubt that they take the property as tenants in common. There is no question or survivorship. If so. the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in his finding that Govindan Nair and Sankaran Nair took the property as their tavazhi property and after the death of Govindan Nair. first defendant Sankaran Nair alone got the property by survivorship. Being co-owners. Govindan Nair had a definite half share in the property. That share was capable of passing on to his heirs namely. plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. The learned Munsiff was correct in his findings and the learned Subordinate Judge went wrong in this respect. 14.. It follows that the judgment under appeal rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge has to be set aside and that of the Munsiff restored. In the result. the judgment and decree under appeal rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge. Manjeri. are hereby set aside and those of the Munsiff restored. but. in the circumstances. without costs.