JUDGMENT M. M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Defendants 2 to 4 are the appellants. Plaintiff (1st respondent) filed the suit for partition claiming 1/18 share in the plaint schedule property. The Munsiff, Thaliparamba dismissed the suit holding that the property conveyed under Ext. A1 was intended for the enjoyment 3 of the tavazhi-tarwad of Devaki Amma and her children through her second husband Raman Nambissan and that the plaintiff who is her grand son through her first husband is not entitled to claim any share in the property. Allowing plaintiff's appeal the suit was decreed by the Sub . Judge, Payyannur. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property was jointly acquired by his mother Devaki Amma and her three children in her second husband Raman Nambissan as per Ext. A1. document dated 24th July 1905 and that he as the son of Lakshmi Amma, daughter of Devaki Amma in her first marriage is entitled to 1/18 share. Defendants 2 to 4 filed written statement contending inter alia that the property was acquired for the benefit of the tavazhi of Devaki Amma and children in her second husband, that it has all the characteristics of puthravakasam and that the plaintiff who is not a member of the said tavazhi cannot claim any right over it. 3. The Munsiff relying on 'Kalliani v. Anandan 1962 KLT 234 held that a tavazhi constituted by a marumakkathayi woman and her children by the donor husband excludes her children by another and so Lakshmi Amma, daughter of Devaki Amma in her first husband could not have obtained any right in the property and consequently plaintiff cannot claim partition. The above ruling has no application to the facts of the case in hand as there is no evidence to hold that Raman Nambissan husband of Devaki Amma had any role to play in the acquisition of the property. Property acquired as per Ext. A1 sale deed cannot be declared as puthravakasam property and it cannot be held that Devaki Amma and her children in her second husband alone are entitled to it to the exclusion of plaintiff' and defendants 5 and 6 who are the children of .Lakshmi Amma daughter of Devaki Amma in her first husband/ There is nothing in Ext. A1 to suggest that Raman Nambissan had anything to do with the transaction. A1 to suggest that Raman Nambissan had anything to do with the transaction. There is no recital in the document that the consideration emanated from Raman Nambissan. He has no role even as an identifying or attesting witness in Ext. A1. Contention of the appellants-defendants that under Marumakkathayam Law, the acquisition of a woman, in the absence of evidence to the contrary are to be presumed to have been made out of funds supplied by her husband for the benefit or his wife and children to the exclusion of others and hence plaintiff's claim has to be rejected out right has no merit as it is not an acquisition by Marumakkathayi woman alone. It is conceded by the plaintiff's counsel that if Ext. A-1, property has the characteristics of puthravakasam plaintiff cannot have any share. 4. The question that arises for consideration is whether a property jointly acquired by a Marumakkathayi woman and her major children can be construed as puthravakasam property especially when evidence is lacking to hold that her husband has not supplied the necessary funds for the acquisition. A1 can be construed as puthravakasam property only if it was acquired by Raman Nambissan or it was gifted by him to Devaki Amma. Ext. A-1 document does not reveal that any portion of the consideration came from Raman Nambissan.. There is also no evidence to hold that Raman Nambissan was having sufficient funds to utilise the same for Ext. A-1 acquisition. Nor is there any evidence to hold that Devaki Amma and her major children who acquired Ext. A-1property were not in a position to provide for the necessary funds to acquire the property. 5. The presumption can arise only if the purchase was in the name of Devaki Amma alone. There cannot be any presumption where the purchase was made by herself and her three adult children. Though in a case where a Marumakkathayi woman acquired property presumption can very well be there that funds were supplied by her husband it cannot be extended when the acquisition was made by the woman and her major children. The presumption is really rebutted as can be gathered from the evidence of the third defendant who was examined as D.W. 2. The presumption is really rebutted as can be gathered from the evidence of the third defendant who was examined as D.W. 2. She deposed that the property was acquired by Devaki Amma and her children, that when they were alive nobody had any right and that when Saraswathy Amma died her son Vishnu obtained right. That would show that Saraswathy Amma's son got right only after his mother's death. As her evidence shows that Vishnu got share only as heir and that he did not have right before the death of his mother puthravakasam character- cannot be attributed to Ext. A-1 acquisition. 6. As Devaki Amma and her three major children had acquired the property and as there is no evidence that her husband Raman Nambissan had supplied necessary funds for the acquisition there cannot be any presumption as to its puthravakasam character. As Ext. A1 purchase was made by Devaki Amma and her three adult children and as it cannot have the characteristics of puthravakasam but it being coownership property of Devaki Amma and the other assignees plaintiff's claim to have 1/18 share cannot be denied. 7. The learned Sub Judge was justified in holding that the "property was jointly acquired by Devaki Amma and her three adult children and Raman Nambissan had nothing to do with it. In view of the evidence in the case it is not possible to infer that the acquisition was by Raman Namaissan and as a result, it has the characteristics of puthravakasam property to the exclusion of the plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6. The Sub Judge was justified in holding that the plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6 are cosharers in the property having 1/18 share each. There is no merit in the Second Appeal. Second Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and decree of the Sub Judge are confirmed. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.