1. The plaintiff sues upon a lease granted by the second defendant the senior of two grantees in Putravakasam. It is argued that a lease by the senior member alone is invalid and reliance is placed upon certain observations of MOORE and Sankaran Nair, JJ., in Koroth Amman Kutti v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar I.L.R. (1906) Mad. 322. They have been considered and explained in the judgment of the Court in appeal No. 26 of 1905. The learned Judges who decided the case in Koroth Amman Kutti v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar I.L.R. (1906) Mad. 322 are not to be understood as negativing the view that the senior member amongst the grantees has the right of management which a Karnavan would have, in respect of the properties obtained by gift. If so understood it would run counter to the decision in Kunhaaha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee I.L.R. (1893) Mad. 201. In Koroth Amman Kutti v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar I.L.R. (1906) Mad. 322 the question under consideration was whether the grantees and their descendants became a new tarwad in respect of the gifted properties. In saying that they did not, the learned Judges did not purport to hold that the senior member amongst the grantees has not the right of management. If they are to hold the properties like a tarwad there must be a single manager as incident to it. The leasa is therefore valid. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.