1. The revision is filed against the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba. Declarant Narayana Iyer was holding 23.03.500 acres of property as on 1-1-1970. An extent of 50 acres fell under the exempted category. The declarant contended before the Taluk Land Board that his only son Neelakantan had acquired one half right over the property and that he was governed by Mitakshara law. The Taluk Land Board rejected the contention of the declarant that they were governed by Mitakshara law. It also took the view that there was no evidence that the properties involved in the proceedings were ancestral.

2. Under Hindu Law there are only two main schools of law, viz., Dayabhaga and Mitakshara. The Dayabhaga lays down the principle of religious efficacy as a ruling canon in determining the order of succession and it rejects the preference of agnates to cognates which distinguishes the other system. Dayabbaga school of law denies the doctrine that property is by birth and it treats father as the absolute owner of the property and authorises him to dispose of it at his pleasure. It is not disputed that in Kerala especially the Brahmins follow the Mitakshara school of law.