Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.
1. The Judge is of opinion that, where the members of one branch of a tarwad have private means of their own, the Karnavan is not bound to make them the same allowance as he does to other  members of the tarwad. On the other hand, it was held in P. Teyan Nair v. P. Ragavan Nair I.L.R. 4 Mad. 171 that 'the circumstance that a member of the tarwad has other property is not an element in the consideration of his right to share in the enjoyment of the joint family funds,' and that, if it were, 'a man's own individual industry and exertions might be the means of depriving him of his rights in the joint property.' These rulings, though apparently contradictory, are not, in our judgment, irreconcilable. Prima facie the members of a tarwad have equal rights to support out of family funds, but they are not entitled to definite shares in the income (Kunigaratu v. Arrangaden 2 M.H.C.R. 12 and the Karnavan is not accountable if he gives to some more than to others, provided he gives to each what, under the circumstances, would be a reasonable allowance for his subsistence. The circumstances of each member in respect of his private acquisitions would not affect his right to subsistence where the income was sufficient to provide a suitable subsistence for all the members of the tarwad; but where the income is insufficient for this purpose, the Karnavan must, with due regard to the interests of all, look to the private means of each.
2. It does not appear, from the facts mentioned in the judgment that the income of the family as insufficient to provide a suitable subsistence for all, and, if this be so, the judge should not have refused to consider the claim made by the appellants that a portion of the income from the mortgaged lands is to be regarded as their private acquisition. As we consider the investigation imperfect, we shall direct a rehearing of the appeal. The costs of this second appeal will abide and follow the result.