The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Hindu Mitakshara Law governed the parties and that the rights of Arogya were lost by adverse possession.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, in a suit for partition. Plaintiff and defendants 2 to 9 are the children of one Arogya Maniyakaran (shortly called 'Arogya' hereinafter). They belong to the Vaniya Christian Community in the Chittur Taluk, which was part of the erstwhile princely State of Cochin. Though Christians by faith, this community was governed by the Hindu Mitakshara Law of inheritance.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belonged to Arogya. On his death on 15-6-70, it is averred that the properties devolved on plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9. Plaintiff contended that the Mitakshara Law was no longer applicable to the Community. The plaintiff would also say that defendants 2 to 7 in collusion with the 15th defendant filed O. S.209/59 in the Court of the Munsiff, Chittur, against Arogya, obtained a decree, and in execution sold A schedule properties. As legal heir of Arogya, the plaintiff claims partition and separate possession.

3. Defendants 10 to 20 contested the suit. According to them, the properties of Arogya were surrendered to the jenmi and the defendants and their mother were in possession of those properties, for over 20 years. If at all Arogya bad any rights, these were lost by adverse possession. Certain properties of Arogya were sold in execution of decrees. Separate written statements were filed, but substantially on these lines. The 10th defendant filed an additional written statement, contending that neither the Indian Succession Act, 1925 nor the Cochin Christian Succession Act, Act 6 of 1079 M.E. govern the community and that they are governed by the Hindu Mitakshara Law. Under the said law, the plaintiff had no right of inheritance.

4. The court below found that the parties were governed by the Hindu Mitakshara Law, that the rights of Arogya if any, were lost by adverse possession and that the properties having been sold in execution of the decree in O. S.209/59 of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur and O.S. 79/1120 of the District Court, Trichur there was nothing left to be partitioned.

5. Counsel for appellant challenged the judgment and decree on three grounds. He would say that the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (called the 'Indian Act' hereinafter) governs the parties and not Mitakshara law, that the customary law was replaced by statutory law, and that the finding of adverse possession is wrong.

6. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mary Roy & others v. State of Kerala & others (1986) 2 SCC 209) 1986 KLT 508 to say that the Indian Act governed the parties who are Christians in the matter of inheritance. We may notice, in this context that the case of the appellant in the memorandum of appeal was that the Hindu Succession Act, replaced Mitakshara Law. This was not pursued. An altercate contention was taken that the Indian Act applied, presumably drawing inspiration from Mary Roy's case. In the case of Mary Roy the question considered was whether after the coming into force of Part B States (Laws) Act 1951 the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092 continued to govern intestate succession to property of members of the Indian Christian community in territories originally part of the princely State of Travancore. In the former princely State of Travancore intestate succession to the property of members of the Indian Christian community was governed by the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092. S.3 of Part B States (Laws) Act 1951 extends the territorial operation of the Acts, named in the schedule thereto, to Part B States. The Indian Succession Act 1925, is one of these Acts. S.6 provides for repeal of corresponding Acts in force in those States prior to the appointed day, namely 1-4-1951. Thereafter, the Central Acts extended under S.3, took the place of the State Acts. The Supreme Court held that on the coming into force of Part B States (Laws) Act 1951 the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092 corresponding to Chapter II of Part 5 of the India