1. The plaintiff-appellant brings this suit for the recovery of an elephant and also certain documents in the possession of the defendants. The defendants are the children and the wives of one Moossankutty, the deceased younger brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff bases his claim as karnavan of the tavazhi consisting of the children of one Asya, the mother of the plaintiff and Moossankutty and it is alleged that Moossankutty bought this elephant out of tavazhi property and consequently the karnavan is now entitled to possession. As regards the documents it is said that they relate to tavazhi property and that the plaintiff is the proper custodian.
2. The first argument advanced in appeal is with reference to the procedure adopted in the lower Court. The Subordinate Judge stated that the nature of certain properties situated in Chandranalloor was not in issue in the suit and he would not allow any further questions to be asked as to whether they were tavazhi properties or not. It is now stated that not only was oral evidence excluded but also documentary evidence. The plaintiff has filed a list of documents which he said were so excluded. When the Subordinate Judge gave this ruling, the case was proceeding and P.W. 2 was being examined. The documents now put forward by the plaintiff (with one exception) were not included in the list of documents filed by him, and at the time the order was made, those documents were in the District Munsif's Court and no application had been made by the plaintiff to secure their production. It was therefore too late for him to claim to exhibit these documents in the suit. So far as the oral evidence is concerned it can be of very little importance in determining the nature of these properties, and we do find that notwithstanding the Subordinate Judge's prohibition many questions were put to the witnesses on this very point and the answers have been recorded. We do not, therefore, think it necessary to give plaintiff any further opportunity of adducing evidence which he was not prepared to do in the lower Court.
3. Coming to the merits of the case, it is argued that there is a very strong presumption that property standing in the name of a member of a Malabar tarwad belonged to that tarwad. The presumption has been laid down in Chathu Nambiar v. Sekharan Nambiar : AIR1925Mad430 and Mari Veetil Chathu Niar V. Mari Veetil Mulamparol Sekaran Nair  33 Mad. 250 with regard to karnavans, and undoubtedly, with regard to karnavans, the presumption is very strong; for they are in possession of the whole of the property of the tarwad and can deal with it as they like. A similar presumption is sought to be established with regard to anandravans. Ordinarily an anandravan has no private property, but is only a member of the tarwad which owns properties; but when we find that there is property in the name of anandravan and it is not shown that he has been in possession of tarwad funds, the presumption in favour of the property being tarwad property is very slight, and it is open to the anandravan to show he had private money out of which he could acquire the property. (The judgment then discussed the evidence and came to the conclusion that the evidence that the elephant was purchased by Moossankutty for himself was very strong and found that it was purchased by him out of his own funds. (As regards documents it to was found that the question whether they were tavazhi properties was in issue in another suit and therefore no order was passed with regard to them. The appeal was dismissed.)