[1] In this case it appears that one Uthothi, a Moplah made a gift of land to his wife, Ayissa, who belonged to a tarwad governed by the Marumakkathayam law and the question is, to whom does the land descend on Ayissa s death. The District Judge has dealt with the case as if the question were to whom it descended on the death of Uthothi. Uthothi being a Muhammadan, the presumption may be that his property would descend according to Muhamadan Law according to Assan v. Pathumma1 and Kunhunbi Umma v. Kandy Moithin (1903) I.L.R. 27 M. 77 the cases relied on by the District Judge. We think, however, that the present case is governed by the decision of the Full Bench on facts very similar to the present in Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee (1892) I.L.R. 16 M. 201 which has been followed and explained in Koroth Amman Kutti v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar (1906) I.L.E. 29 M. 32

2. In the first of these cases, property given to one Ayissamma and her children after the death of her husband Taruvai in accordance with his orally expressed wish was held to be taken by Ayissamma who was governed by the Murumakkathayam law and her children as their exclusive property with the incidents of tarwad property. In that case, the donor, Taruvai, was a Mahomedan and it was stated in argument at page 206 that he was governed by the Marumakkathayam law, but the fact that the donor was a Mahomedan was not held as affecting tie decision. In Koroth Amman Kutti v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar (1906) I.L.R. 29 M. 322 it was held that in the case of a gift to a woman governed by the Marumakkathayam law and to her children by their father the donees take such property with the incidents of tarwad property, but that the gift by the father does not of itself constitute the mother and children separate tarwad. In the present case, though the property was purchased in the name of the mother Ayissa, the District Judge holds, we think rightly, that it was intended for her children as well. If so, according to the decision of the Full Bench, the land became the exclusive property of Ayissa and her children with the incidents of tarwad property. Under these circumstances, the alienations complained of by the 1st plaintiff are invalid and the plaintiffs have a right to a decree for redemption.

[2] We must accordingly reverse the decree of the District Judge and give the plaintiffs a decree as prayed for with costs throughout and 6 months for redemption from date of decree.