1. The first plaintiff is the appellant and the sole defendant, the respondent. The suit was for declaration of title and possession over A & B schedule properties. The properties originally belonged to one Ammalu Kovilamma She was a kshatriya woman. She died intestate. The first plaintiff had married her. He is a Namboodiri. According to him, he is entitled to rights in the property as an heir of his deceased wife. The respondent is the brother of deceased Ammalu Kovilamma. The trial Court decreed the suit upholding the appellant's claim to the property as an heir of Ammalu Kovilamma In appeal by the defendant, the decree of the trial Court was set aside on the ground that the appellant could not claim, to be an heir to Ammalu Kovilamma since the marriage was not registered. Hence this second appeal.

2. The only substantial question of law that arises in this appeal is whether the marriage between a Namboodiri male and a kshatriya female is invalid for want of registration.

3. The short question raised in the appeal can be disposed of with reference to S 3(b) of the Travancore Kshatriya Act. I read the section with the third proviso:

"3 The conjugal union of

xx x x

(b) a Ks