Sir Lionel Leach, C.J:— The parties to this appeal are members of a Malabartarwad. The appellants, who are the junior members, sued the respondent, who is the senior member, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam for a declaration that the properties in his possession belong to the tarwad and that he is merely in charge of them as the karnavan of the family. The proper ties are extensive and produce a large annual income. The respondent pleaded that they belong to standms of which he is the stani and therefore the appellants were not entitled to the declaration asked for, although he admitted that they were entitled to be maintained out of the properties in his possession. The Subordinate Judge found for the respondent and accordingly dismissed the suit. The appeal is from this decision.

The relationship between the parties is shown by the following genealogical tree:—

“A tarwad is an undivided family governed by the Marumakkattayam law, the customary law of Malabar. Its outstanding feature is that for the purpose of inheritance descent is traced through the female line. The property of the family is managed by the karnavan, who is ordinarily the eldest male member. Before the passing of the Marumakkattayam Act, 1932, a member of a tarwad could not insist on a partition. A partition could only take place if all the adult members agreed. Before the passing of the Act the rights of members junior to the karnavan were merely these:—(i) to succeed to the management; (ii) to be maintained by the karnavan; (iii) to object to improper administration of the property of the tarwad and to see that the property was duly conserved for the use of the tarwad; (iv) to bar an adoption and (v) to get each a share should a partition take place. This summary is taken from the treatise of the late Mr. P.R Sundara Ayyar on “Malabar and Aliya-santhana Law”. Mr. Sundara Ayyar was a Judge of this Court from 1911 to 1913 and his work is recognized as being authoritative.

The Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932, has made important changes in the cutomary law, but it is not necessary to enter upon a detailed survey. It will be sufficient for the purposes of this case to refer to sections 32, 38, 43 and 44. Section 32 requires the karnavan to keep true and correct accounts of the income and expenditure of the tarwad and provides that the accounts shall be made available once a year for inspection by the major anandravans (members of a tarwad other than the karnavan). Section 38 makes provision for partition of tarwad property, subject to limitations which do not call for mention here. Section 43 permits two-thirds of the adult members of the tarwad to apply to the Collector for the registration of the tarwad as impartible and authorizes the Collector, if satisfied that the petition is in order, to register the tarwad as impartible. Section 44 allows two-thirds of the adult members of a tarwad registered as impartible to apply for the cancellation of the registration. The appellants applied for the registration of the tarwad under section 43 and their action was resented by the respondent.

The word stanom according to Sundara Aiyar means the status and attendant property of senior rajas. In Moore's “Malabar Law and Custom” it is defined as a station, rank or dignity, and the definition in Wilson's “Glossary of India” is to the same effect. A stani is the holder of a stanom. The ancient rulers of the Malabar coast possessed stanoms and it may be taken that the lands which they held as rulers were regarded as being stanom in character. Rulers granted stanoms to their, subsidiary chieftains and public officers. The grant of a stanom to a subsidiary ruler or public officer was usually accompanied by a grant of land for the maintenance of the dignity. In Mr. Sundara Aiyar's book or work a chapter is devoted to this subject and it is there pointed out that in addition to the families of princes and chieftains there were other families possessing stanoms without any particular dignity attaching to them. In ancient days when a family became opulent and influential the members of the tarwad sometimes agreed to set aside for the karnavan certain property in order that he might keep up his social position and influence and this property descended to the next head of the family. What was permissible in ancient days is not, however, permissible in these days. In Velia Kaimal v. Velluthadatha Shamu(1) this Court held that a tarwad cannot now create a stanom.

It is an accepted rule that, where there are properties attached to a stanom, the stani has the right to utilize the income for his own purposes and the members of the tarwad are not entitled to claim maintenance out of such income. In the present case the respondent says that he is bound to maintain the members of the tarwad out of the income from what he claims to be stanom properties, but Mr. T.R Venkatarama Sastriar, who appears for him, has not referred to any other case where the members of a tarwad have the right to claim to be maintained out of stanom properties. We consider that the respondent has made this assertion in an attempt to avoid the conclusions to be drawn from the judgments in two cases decided in 1818 to which reference will be made presently.

It is also common ground that properties acquired by a stani out of the income of the stanom properties become on his death the properties of the kovilagam in which he was born, unless he has disposed of them or has shown an intention to attach them to the stanom. A kovilagam is a family residence of a ruler wherein junior members of a branch of the family live under the management of the eldest resident female of that particular branch; see Moore's “Malabar Law and Custom”. Third Edition, page 355. In the family of which the parties are members there is only one kovilagam.

In 1792 Tippu ceded Malabar to the East India Company and ever since it has been under the rule of the Government of India. On the secession, the ruling powers of the rajahs and the chieftains were taken away from them. They were not deprived of the possession of their landed properties, but they were compelled to pay land revenue in respect of them and consequently became mere holders of land held under ryotwari tenure. Up to 1806 the deposed rulers were allowed to collect the land revenue and retain for themselves one fifth of the net income, but in that year the East India Company itself undertook the collection and thereafter the Government granted to the deposed rulers annual allowances (malikhana) for the maintenance of themselves and their families. The malikhana was liable to forfeiture on proof of disloyalty or misconduct. In his “Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads”, Volume X, page 178, Aitchison points out that malikhana holders are in no sense zamindars. Zamindars are found on the east coast of South India, not on the west coast, and this is to be borne in mind. The only ruler with whom the East India Company entered into an agreement in writing in respect of the payment of malikhana was the Zamorin (The Rajah of Calicut). This agreement is set out in full at pages 247 to 250 of Volume X of Aitchison's “Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads” and is also reproduced in Logan's “Collection of treaties and other papers of Importance”, Second Edition, pages 372 to 376. It is not disputed that malikhana allowances were granted to all the deposed rulers on the same basis. While a rajah or chieftain and his successors might continue to regard lands formerly held by him as a ruler as still being stanom lands, he and they were, so far as the Government was concerned, merely holders of such lands under ryot-wari tenure.

The head of the family of which the parties are members was a ruling chieftain in 1792, although his state, Kavalappara, situate in what is now known as the Walavanad taluk, was a small one. An idea of its size in relation to other states in Malabar is to be gathered from the map to be found at page 44 of “The Malabar Gazetteer”. Mr. Sundara Aiyar does not include the Kavalappara rajah in his list of ruling princes given at page 52 of his work, because that list was confined to the principal, members of that class, but there can be no doubt that the head of the Kavalappara family was a ruling chieftain in 1792, because in 1806 the East India Company granted to the family a malikhana of Rs. 4,567-10-3.

While the origin of the state is not really known it may be taken that at one time the chieftain of Kavalappara was subordinate to the Rajah of Palghat because the latter bestowed upon him the following stanoms in the Palghat taluk:—

(i) Kanhumal Pada Najjar with the stanom name of Ittunni Kumaran Raman.

(ii) Pannithiruthi Kymal with the stanom name of Ittunni Kumaran Raman.

(iii) Chundil Muthar with the stanom name of Kota Kumaran Raman.

(iv) Kattusseri Kymal with the stanom name of Karuthillath Ittunni Kumaran Raman.

(v) Pazhambalakode Muthar with the stanom name of Kumaran Raman alias Pazhambalakode Muthar.

He also possessed two stanoms in Cochin territory. The stanom name of the Kavalappara chieftain so far as his own state was concerned was “Karak-kat Kumaran Raman”.

The plaintiffs allege that these stanoms never had lands attached to them, but the documents exhibited anterior in date to 1792 provide strong indication to the contrary and we accept the defendant's case that originally the stanoms granted by the Palghat and Cochin rulers were endowed with lands and that the head of the family held the lands of the Kavalappara state itself entirely in his own right. Whether the state lands and the lands which formed the endowments of these stanoms were treated as tarwad properties after the ruling powers were taken away and the malikhana granted instead is another matter. This is the main question which the Court is called upon to decide in this, appeal.

The Subordinate Judge's reasons for holding that the properties in suit are stanom properties are broadly these:— (1) At the time of the cession of Malabar the Kavalappara Nayar was an independent chieftain; (ii) the presumption in the case of rulers is in favour of the impartible nature of their possessions; (iii) other Malabar rulers possessed stanom properties; (iv) the description of the head of the family in documents relating to property is consistent with a stanom character; (v) some of the ceremonies performed by the quondam rulers are still performed and (vi) the maintenance of the members of the family out of properties held by the head of the family is not inconsistent with his position as a stani successor of the ruling chieftain of 1792.

What were the habits and customs of the rulers in Malabar, prior to 1792 is not of great importance when considering what is the position 150 years later. Ceremonies and customs may continue, but whether property rights remain the same is a very different matter. The only safe guide in deciding whether rights in property are the same as those held a century and a half ago is to ascertain what has been the course of events, since. We propose to examine the course of events since 1792, but before doing so it may be pointed out that the respondent's claim that the whole of the properties in his possession belong to stanoms is obviously fallacious. In fact, Mr. Venkatarama Sastriar has conceded this. Some of the lands now in his possession were in the dim past set apart for the maintenance of the Amma Nethiyar (the senior lady of the family) and the junior members of the kovilagam. Exhibit XII is a receipt given by the village munsif to the agent of the senior lady of the family for revenue paid by her. The document is torn and it does not disclose the year, but it is not disputed that it was given in the first quarter of the last century. Exhibit XIII is a patta granted to the Amma Nethiyar by the East India Company and the date appears as 27th April 1842. Then there is Exhibit XV, a patta granted to the Kavalappara Muppil Nayar by the Government on 2nd January 1869. The word “Muppil” means “senior” and the designation “Kavalappara Muppil Nayar” is not a stanom title. This grant is just as consistent with it being a grant to the head of the family as the karnavan of the tarwad as being a grant to him as a stani; if anything the indication is more in favour of it being a grant to him as the karnavan.

The plaintiffs have not filed a list of the properties which they say the respondeht holds as the karnavan. As we have indicated, it is their case that all the properties held by him are held as the karnavan. Before the trial commenced the respondent urged that the plaintiffs should specify the properties which they alleged belonged to the tarwad. It was held that it was not necessary for them to do so. Their case was that everything held by the respondent belonged to the tarwad. It is not without significance that the respondent has himself not attempted to identify any of the properties in his possession with the stanoms of the family.

In the case of properties held by the head of a tarwad the presumption is that they are tarwad properties. Mr. Sundara Aiyar at page 256 of his work expresses the opinion that the question whether there is a stanom in any particular case must be decided upon the evidence of usage adduced, and the onus is upon those who assert that any particular property belongs to an individual and not to the family to which the individual belongs. He goes on to say that it is not sufficient in order to create a stanom that properties are temporarily allotted to a person filling a particular position. The evidence must be sufficient to prove a long continued usage recognizing the property in question as belonging to the person filling a particular position without any interest in the members of the family to which the person holding the position belongs and without any power in them to terminate the arrangement. In this connexion he relies on the decisions of this Court in Parrakel Kondi Menon v. Vadakentil Kunni Penna and Velia, Kamal v. Velluthadatha Shamu(2). We are in agreement with this opinion. Further, the respondent must show that properties which have been purchased out of the income of stanom properties have remained stanom in character, but he has made no attempt to prove this.

With these preliminary observations we will now proceed to refer to the principal events in this family since the early part of the last century. In 1817, Valia Kava Nethiyar, the mother of the third Nayar who was then a child of seven or eight years, instituted a suit on behalf of herself and another suit on behalf of her son claiming maintenance from the then Muppil Nayar. The defence was that the mother was only entitled to maintenance out of the properties which were in the possession of the Amma Nethiyar and the same applied to the son until he became of age. The properties in the possession of the Amma Nethiyar had, the defendant said, been set aside for the maintenance of the ladies and the children of the tarwad. The mother had left the house where the Amma Nethiyar resided, taking her child with her, and the Muppil Nayar resented her action. The judgments in these suits have been exhibited. The Court, held that the plaintiffs were entitled to be maintained out of the properties in the possession of the defendant and a decree was passed against him in each suit. In the mother's suit the defendant's own witnesses stated that if the ladies lived separate on being compelled to do so as the result of family dissensions, the defendant, whom they described as the karnavan, should maintain them. These judgments have a very important bearing on this case. The defendant there could not be compelled to maintain the plaintiffs out of stanom properties and notwithstanding that certain properties were in the possession of the Amma Nethiyar for the purpose of the maintenance of the ladies and the children of the family, decrees for maintenance were passed against him to be satisfied out of properties held by him. What is more, his own witnesses regarded the properties in his possession as being tarwad properties and he as being the karnavan. The statement of the defendant that he was bound to maintain, out of the properties held by him, the third Nayar on his reaching majority in itself amounted to an admission that the properties in his hands were not stanom properties. In the translation of the judgment in the mother's suit the defendant is referred to as the “stani”, but it is admitted that this word is not to be found in the original. In the judgment in the mother's suit there is this passage:—

“On looking into the matters mentioned above, there is nothing to show on what grounds the plaintiff had gone and lived separate from the tarwad members of her own accord in disregard of the orders of the present Kavalappara Moopil Nair and without considering the status, dignity and the propriety (of the stanom). Even though the defendant's contention in his written statement that it is the Amma Nethiyrr who should look after the maintenance of the plaintiff inasmuch as the plaintiff did not return to and stay in Kavalappara in spite of the attempts made through the Brahmins and other respectable persons to avoid the moopu, getting a bad name—owing to a rumour getting afloat that there is dissension among the members as a result of the plaintiff's action—is a proper one, the Court is of the opinion that, if the members—who are related to the Moopil Nair as his direct sister and direct nephew like the third Nair and who are closely related together as heirs to the properties—live separate for any reason whatsoever and ask for their maintenance, the Moopil Nair ought to have ordered payment of their maintenance amounts and maintained them in accordance with their status (in the stanom). Instead of doing this, the Moopil Nair cannot stop the maintenance paid to the Anandiravars who may be of bad temperament.”

The word stanom which appears twice in the translation is not to be found in the original. It also appears erroneously in the translation of the judgment in the son's suit. Neither of the judgments can be read as supporting the claim put forward by the present defendant. On the contrary they are very much against him.

The next event of importance is a suit filed by the Elaya Nayar (the second senior member of the family) and four other members of the tarwad in 1859 in the Zilla Civil Court of Calicut and numbered Original Suit No. 2 of 1859. The first defendant was the Muppil Nayar of that time. It was filed to recover possession of properties which the plaintiffs alleged were the ancestral possessions of the family of which they and the Muppil Nayar were members and the which they owned equal rights. The plaintiffs alleged that the Muppil Nayar was incompetent to manage the affairs of the family and that by an agreement in writing dated 29th September 1857 he had undertaken that the affairs of the family should be managed by the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs sought a decree enforcing the agreement. The defence was that the agreement had not been entered into and that the properties of which the plaintiffs sought possession were stanom properties which had devolved upon the first defendant as the senior male member of the tarwad. The Court held that the plaintiffs had not proved the alleged agreement and that therefore it was not necessary to decide whether the properties belonged to the tarwad or to stanoms.

The Muppil Nayar who was the defendant in that suit died in 1872 and the only surviving member of the family was Parvathi Nethiyar, whose name appears first in the genealogical tree which we have set out at the beghining of the judgment. She was a child at the time and consequently all the properties of which the last Muppil Nayar died possessed were taken charge of by the Court of Wards, which remained in charge of the estate until her son Appukuttanumii Muppil Nayar became of age in 1910. All the properties held by her predecessor, including the properties which had been held by the. Amma Nethiyar of 1817 were transferred into the name of Parvathi Nethiyar. Throughout the management of the properties the Court of Wards regarded them all as belonging to the tarwad and not as belonging to stanoms.

From 1878 to 1892 Mr. W. Logan was the Collector of Calicut. In 1891 a collection of treaties, engagements and other papers of importance were edited by him and were published by the Madras Government. Mr. Logan had a great knowledge of the people and the customs of Malabar and it is not without significance that he treated the properties comprising the estate as belonging to the tarwad. On 9th December 1880 he directed an inquiry to be held with regard to the nature of certain of the properties of which the Court of Wards had taken charge. The report is not on the record, but presumably it did not disclose that any of them were attached to a stanom because the Court of Wards continued to regard all the assets as belonging to the tarwad. It may be mentioned that on 18th September 1895 the agent of the Court of Wards issued a questionnaire to the manager of the estate. The manager was asked whether there were more stanoms than one in the “Kavalappara Swarupam”; if so, what they were; whether there were separate properties attached to each of the stanoms; and if so, what those properties were. The manager submitted a report which according to a statement therein was made merely on a perusal of the records. In the report the manager expressed the opinion that there were no separate properties set apart for the maintenance of the members of the tarwad who were not stanis. This is obviously not correct, because, as we have already indicated, properties had been set aside for the maintenance of the Amma Nethiyar and of the other ladies and of the children of the family. He also stated that it was the custom of the Muppil Nayar to give to the other members, from and out of the stanom properties, the expenses for their maintenance and therefore they had a claim to the stanom properties for their maintenance. The manager's opinion can carry no weight as it was not based on personal knowledge. Moreover, the Court of Wards later took the opinion of the late Mr. P.R Sundara Aiyar. This opinion was excluded from the record by the trial Judge and we have refused to admit it, as such opinions do not constitute legal evidence. The fact remains, however, that the Court of Wards disregarded the answers of the manager to the questionnaire.

In 1896 Parvathi Nethiyar asked the Court of Wards to continue in management of the estate until her son Appukuttanunni, who was then in his sixth year, became of age. This is to be gathered from a letter, dated 29th November 1886, written by Mr. Logan as the Collector of Calicut and Agent to the Court of Wards to the Secretary to the Court of Wards. Her request was complied with. Parvathi Nethiyar died in 1904. On 16th August 1905 the Government passed an order recognizing Narayani Nethiyar, her eldest surviving child, as the “pro-prietrix” of the estate and she remained the holder of it until her brother Appukuttanunni became of age in 1910, when the Court of Wards handed it over to him as the karnavan of the tarwad.

Appukuttanunni treated all the properties of which he became possessed as belonging to the tarwad. This is admitted and therefore it is not necessary to examine in detail the documentary evidence which proves this fact. We will, however, mention that in giving evidence in Original Suit No. 34 of 1918 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam, Appukuttanunni stated in examination-in-chief and also in cross-examination that the accounts which he kept related to the tarwad and that he had no separate accounts relating to the Erappe temple, with which the suit was concerned.

Appukuttanunni died in 1925 and was, succeeded by the present defendant who, until the year 1934, continued to regard himself merely as the head of the tarwad and the properties in his possession as belonging to the tarwad. In a petition to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam, presented in the month of December 1926, asking for a succession certificate in respect of certain properties held by Appukuttanunni he said:

“Your petitioner is the senior male member karnavan and manager of his family and claims administration of all his properties and credits as his brother and the present karnavan manager of the family.”

In a letter addressed to the Nedungadi Bank, Limited, dated 12th November 1925, the defendant referred to himself as the “present karnavan of his tarwad and legal representative” of Appukuttanunni. In a petition, dated 5th February 1926, filed by Appukuttanunni's widow asking for a succession certificate to enable her to receive payment of an amount due on a policy of life insurance taken out by her deceased husband she described the respondent as “the karnavan and manager of the family”, and he consented to the petition being granted.

The Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932, came into force on 1st August 1933 and in the month of March 1934 the plaintiffs applied for the registration of the tarwad as being an impartible tarwad under section 43 of the Act. It was not until this happened that the defendant denied the right of the tarwad to the properties in suit. He apparently feared that later an application for partition might be made under section 44. In spite of his opposition an order for registration was made. In consequence of the change in the attitude of the defendant the appellants filed the present suit in order that there should be an authoritative decision on the question of the ownership of the properties in the hands of the defendant.

Mr. Venkatarama Sastriar on behalf of the respondent has contended that the decisions given in the suits of 1817 and all that has happend from 1872 until the plaintiffs applied for the registration of the tarwad in 1934 should be ignored, because there have been numerous instances of the head of the family acquiring properties, granting kanams and suing tenants in stanom names. Even without the oral evidence which has been given in this case we consider that the Court would not be justified in accepting this plea but, when the oral evidence is considered, there does not appear to be room for doubt that the plea should not be accepted.

P.M Chappunni Valia Nayar (P.W 1) is the head of a family which was a ruling family before 1792. He states that the properties held by him as the head of the family belong to his tarwad and are not stanom properties, although he still possesses a stanom. M. Krishna Variar (P.W 2) is a pleader practising in the Walluvanad District Munsif's Court. He is the receiver of the Parakat alias Kundarakal Nayar's family properties. He states that the Parakat Nayar has a stanom name, but all his properties are tarwad properties. P. Sankunni Menon (P.W 4) is the manager of the properties of another ancient family possessing a stanom title. He says that the properties of that family do not belong to the stanom, although the stanom name is usually recited in documents. Similar evidence is given by M. Sankunni Nayar (P.W 5), Mookunrii Kurup (P.W 6), K. Madhava-nunni Muppil Nayar (P.W 7), K.T Ramanunni Nayan (P.W 8) and P. Govindan Nayar, a witness called by the respondent. K. Madhavanunni Muppil Nayar who possesses three stanoms states that the properties held by him belong to his tarwad and that there are no properties belonging to his stanoms. K.T Ramanunni Nayar, an Advocate of twenty-seven years' standing, is a member of a tarwad possessing a stanom and in this case also the properties all belong to the tarwad. P. Govindan Nayar was the fifth witness for the defence and his evidence is equally strong in support of the contention that stanom titles do not in these days necessarily imply that there are stanom properties. The defendant led evidence to show that in certain families properties are still held as stanom properties, and that is the case cannot be denied. All that the plaintiffs say is that the fact that stanom names are used in formal documents does not imply that the properties held by the defendant are stanom properties, and this is obviously the case. It is admitted that since 1910 the head of the family has only used the stanom name “Karakkat Kumaran Raman”. All other stanom names have been abandoned.

In the judgment under appeal reference is made to “the Kavalappara Swarupam”. The word swarupam is defined by Moore as “a dynasty” and by Logan as “dynasty, family”. In Wilson's Glossary the definition is “Natural form, inherent property or nature; it is sometimes used in the ??? for property in land or money, an estate”. In many of the exhibits the word swarupam has been translated as “estate”. As a subsidiary meaning of the word this is no doubt legitimate, but it is not a correct translation of the word wherever used in the documents which have been exhibited. In the course of the arguments the Court asked Mr. Venkatarama Sastriar whether he could point to a single document on the record where the word swarupam could correctly be translated as “estate”, and he was not able to point to one. Therefore it may be taken that so far as this case is concerned the word swarupam wherever used means “family”. We draw attention to this fact lest it should be said, that we have not had regard to the meaning of the word when considering the documentary evidence. It may be added that in paragraph 3 of his written statement the respondent refers to his family as being a swarupam. In a statement made to the Collector when he was opposing the registration of the tarwad as impartible he referred to the family as “the Kavalappara Swarupam”. In the agreement entered into by the East India Company with the Zamorin in 1806 with regard to the payment of malikhana the word suruwam which is the same as swarupam is used in the same sense.

The position may be summarized as follows:—

(i) The defendant's case that all the properties belong to the ancient stanoms of his family has broken down. Admittedly there are properties now held by him which are not of stanom character, namely, the properties formerly held by the Amma Nethiyar.

(ii) Admittedly properties have been acquired by successive heads of the family out of the income of the lands held by them and it has not been shown that these accretions have been merged into stanoms, which means that they must be regarded as being tarwad properties.

(iii) In the suits of 1817 the defence put up by the then Muppil Nayar is entirely inconsistent with the present claim that the properties in the hands of the defendant belong to stanoms and the judgments emphasize this. There is here strong indication that the then head of the family did not regard any of the properties held by him as being stanom properties. The great change which took place in 1792 was no doubt responsible for this. Since that year the Government has consistently treated all stanom lands as being held under ryotwari tenure and the holders have paid land revenue accordingly.

(iv) From 1812, when the Court of Wards took charge of the estate, until 1910, when it handed it over to Appukuttanunni, the Court of Wards, a statutory body, in full possession of the facts, regarded the estate as belonging to the tarwad.

(v) Appukuttanunni, and after him the present defendant, until the application was made by the plaintiffs in 1934 for the registration of the tarwad under section 43 of the Marumakkattayarn Act, recognized the right of the tarwad in all the properties.

(vi) As the family is governed by the Maru-makkattayam law the presumption is that the properties held by the head of it belong to the tarwad and on him who contends otherwise lies the burden.

(vii) The defendant has made no attempt to show that any of the properties held by him belonged to stanoms acquired or granted to his forbears.

For these reasons we consider that the appellants' case is well founded and that they are entitled to the decree which they seek. Consequently the appeal will be allowed with costs here and below. We fix the fee of the senior Advocate at Rs. 2,000 and certify for two Counsel.

G.R