The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the Makkathayam system of inheritance followed by the Kurava community, the application of Hindu Law modified by custom, and the significance of evidence in supporting claims related to inheritance and property rights.

1. Defendants 1, 3 and 5 are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' share in the plaint property. Ayyan Adichan, a Kurava, got registry of the plaint property and was in possession. He died more than 40 years ago. He had three daughters and one son. 1st defendant is his only son. 1st plaintiff, deceased Kali Kochayya (mother of plaintiffs 2 to 5) and deceased Kah Kali (mother of the 6th plaintiff and the 2nd defendant) are the daughters. The plaintiffs allege that they are followers of Makkathayam system of inheritance under which the sons and daughters inherit the property of their father in equal shares. The 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint property. He was giving the share of profits to the plaintiffs until 1964 but thereafter has refused to recognise the claim of the daughters. So, they claim a partition of 5/8th share in the property. The 1st defendant and defendants 3 and 5 who are his son and grandson dispute the claim of the daughters for a share. According to them, the system of inheritance followed by the Kuravas of Kottarakkara Taluk does not recognise the right of a daughter for a share if there is a son to the acquirer. The daughters were given in marriage by the acquirer and they have all become members of their husband's family after marriage. The acquirer had also given streedhanam to them and therefore they do not inherit any right from their father. Even if they had any right the same is lost by adverse possession and limitation. On these pleas they opposed the suit. The trial court relying on Ext.P2, a judgment in O.S. 5/57 passed by the Sub Court, Kottarakara, came to the conclusion that sons and daughters of the deceased are entitled to inherit his property. The trial court also found that there is no evidence to show that the daughters of the acquirer were given in marriage in the kudiveppu form on payment of streedhanam and therefore they have not lost their right in their father's property. But, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that the 1st defendant has prescribed title by adverse possession and limitation. On appeal the lower appellate court did not go into the question regarding the system of inheritance followed by the parties on the ground that there was no cross-objection against the finding of the trial court on this question and differing from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Munsiff on the question of adverse possession and limitation, decreed the suit for partition of 5/8th share to the plaintiffs. This second appeal is filed in these circumstances.

2. The appellate court is wrong in refusing to consider the question of the system of inheritance followed by the parties. The trial court's decree was in favour of the defendants and hence they can support that decree without filing a cross-objection. In view of this defect this Court has to go into that question to begin with. It is seen that this Kurava Community people do not follow a uniform system of inheritance. The reported decisions on this point notice the various systems followed by Kuravas who have settled down in different Taluks. The decision reported in Ayyan Aiyappan v. Kannan Sankaran' (1950 KLT 673) proceed on the basis that both systems of inheritance prevail among the members of this community. There is no final decision in that case regarding the law applicable to the community since the matter was only remanded for fresh trial. The next reported case is Cherampennu v. Neelan 1963 KLT 725). That case proceeds on the basis that Kuravas of Travancore follow Marumakkathayam law. It was held in that case that the division should be per stripes and not per capita. In Ayyappan v. Kurumpa Mema (1966 KLT 514) Madhavan Nair J, again noticed the different systems followed by Kuravas of Travancore. The learned judge recognised that among Kuravas the personal law of the family vary from place to place.. Some follow Ma