1. We think the District Judge was right in his view that the properties in question were inherited under the Mahomedan Law. Having regard to the additional issues which were framed, the defendants cannot rely on the alleged admission in the plaint that Suppi's children were governed by the Marumukkathayam law of inheritance.
2. It must now be taken to be common ground that on Suppi's death his children inherited the property under Mahomedan Law. It was argued, however, that on the death of plaintiff's father, who was one of Suppi's children, the further descent of his share in the property must be according to Marumakkathayam Law because he was also a member of Marumakkathayam Tarwad. This does not, however, follow, for in the absence of any usage; to the contrary, property inherited under Mahomedan Law will pass in further descent under that law. This is in accordance with the decisions in Chathuni v. Sankaran 8 M. k238; Assan v. Pathumma 22 M.k 494 and Kunhimbi Umma v. Kandi Moithin 27 M.k 77. The defendants have not proved any such usage.
3. If election were open to the plaintiff's father who was governed by two systems of law in respect of different properties, he must be taken to have elected when he accepted Ex.-A.
4. As regards items Nos. 6 and 7, it is admitted they were Suppi's properties, and the plaintiff's father would, therefore, be a tenant in common with Suppi's other children.
5. There is no evidence of ouster to constitute adverse possession.
6. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.