Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.
1. There is no authority for the practice which has been recently introduced in the Malabar Courts for awarding one moiety of the assets of the tarwad to the karnavan.
2. The tarwad is a family of which the karnavan is the manager, and, although as a senior member he enjoys special consideration, he has no higher claim in the enjoyment of the income than any other member of the family. He has a right to expend, as he pleases, for the common benefit of all. Amongst other expenditure, it devolves on him to see to the performance of the ceremonies and to the upkeep of the house and other family properties, and, when it becomes necessary, to ascertain what is a proper allowance for members who do not reside in the tarwad house. Allowance must, no doubt, be made for the charges which especially devolve on the karnavan. In some cases, it may be necessary to allow him to retain more, in others less than one moiety of the net profits, but in each case the allowance to the karnavan must be determined in advertence to the particular circumstances. Allowance should also be made for the satisfaction of debts, and it must be determined whether any debts alleged to be due are in fact due by the tarwad if the liability of the tarwad is disputed.
3. We remit to the Appellate Court for re-trial in advertence to the foregoing observations, the issue--What is the proper sum to be allowed to the plaintiffs?