1. It is found by the Courts below that the plaintiffs constituted the members of the Tavazhi tarwad of Mulamparol and that they are entitled to the kanom amount in deposit. It is contended for the defendants that this finding is not correct. The decision in Korott Amman Kutti v. Perunjottil Appti Nambiyar I.L.R. (1881) M. 141 is cited as opposed to the view of the lower Courts. It was there held by Moore and Sankaran Nair JJ., 'that when a female and some of, or all, her children obtain any property from their father or Karnavan they are not thereby constituted into a tarwad by themselves, the senior member among them having the ordinary rights of the Karnavan of a Malabar Tarwad so far as the other members in his branch are concerned.' This view has been adopted in A.S. No. 59 of 1905. All that these cases can be said to decide is that the mere circumstance of such a gift without more is insufficient to create a Tavazhi Tarwad. But whereas in this case there is the gift of property in enjoyment by the Tavazhi for more than eighty years and separate living by the members of the branch, we are not prepared to say that the Courts below were not justified in coming to the conclusion that the branch constituted a Tavazhi Tarwad. But, whether this view is correct or not, the question is whether the property acquired by the Manager of the branch, who is only an Anandravan of the whole Tarwad, when there is no evidence as to the source out of which the property was acquired, is to be deemed the property of the Tarwad or of the branch. It is admitted that Ukkaran Nair who was the Manager of the branch and an Anandravan of the Tarwad at the time acquired the kanotn interest under Exhibits A and B. It is a well recognized principle of Hindu Law that if nothing appears upon the case except that a member of a joint family is in possession of property and he alleges that it is his own self-acquisition he is alleging an exception to the general rule and it lies upon him to prove the exception.' See Mayne, paragraph 289. This rule is applicable to acquisitions by Anandravans in Malabar families and has been so applied. In Veer a Rayen v. Valia Rani of Pudia Kovilagam, Calicut I.L.R.(1881) 3 M. 141 it was stated 'it lay on the 1st appellant who being a member of the Kovilagam is found in possession of property, to prove a separate title to it.' See also S.A. 970 of 1883 and S.A. 1153 of 1888. There is no evidence worth the name that Ukkaran Nair had separate property of his own from which the kanom could have been acquired.
2. It remains then to consider whether the acquisition by Ukkaran Nair was for the plaintiff's branch and out of its funds or for the Tarwad. Self-acquisition being out of the way, we think the Courts below were justified in finding that the property belonged to the branch of which Ukkaran Nair was Manager and whose funds he handled.
3. It is unnecessary to lay it down as a broad proposition of law that every acquisition by the Manager of the branch, even though it has not become a Tavazhi Tarwad, is to be presumed to be the property of the branch. The fact that Ukkaran Nair was only an Anandravan of the Tarwad and was at the time of the acquisition in possession of the funds of the branch, but none of his own, is sufficient to justify the finding of the Courts below that it was made out of the funds of the plaintiff's branch.
4. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.