1. The plaintiff is the appellant before me. The suit is for maintenance. The defendants contend that the suit is not properly constituted, as necessary persons are not parties to the suit.
2. The suit is based upon Ex. A, a teer-deed, executed by plaintiff's father Raman Menon, in favour of Narayani Amma. Raman Menon had four daughters and two sons. He executed the document in 1888, in favour of Narayani Amma; but the document recites that Raman Menon's properties were assigned in favour of Narayani Amma and 'those children - boys and girls - who are uterine relations below you and to your mother for your livelihood.' The only difference that I can find between this case and Chakkra Kannan v. Kunhi Pokker (1916) 39 Mad. 317 is that in that case, that document was executed in favour of all the children, whereas in this case, it is executed in favour of one child, but it was mentioned that it was in favour of her brothers and sisters. I do not think this fact makes any difference in the construction of the document. It is not for me, in construing that, to say whether that decision is right or wrong. It is a Full Bench decision. I am bound to hold that the effect of this document, Ex. A, is to constitute a tavazhi. The question, whether if the document is in favour of some of the children alone, a tavazhi is created, as in Chakkra Kannan v. Kunhi Pokker (1916) 39 Mad. 317 does not arise and to constitute a tavazhi, of all the children, does not offend against the ordinary ideas of) Malabar Law. Holding, therefore, that the donees under Ex. A with their mother, constituted a 'tavazh', their children also will be included in the tavazhi and the karnavan of the tavazhi is a necessary party to the suit. Mr. Ramakrishna Aiyar contended that the karnavan might now be made a party and the ease remitted. There is no objection to such a procedure in a proper case; but in this case, the point was decided by the Court below, in the way in which I am holding and it does not appear that any such request was made in the Courts below. After all, it will not help the plaintiff in any way, if I comply with the plaintiff's request. The pleas of limitation cannot be got rid of and costs cannot be got rid of. I do not see, therefore, the purpose of allowing the plaint to be amended.
3. The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.