1. The Second Appeal illustrates the mischief contemplated in the Circular of this Court dated 4101968 for the guidance of the subordinate courts when admissions or concessions are made by advocates in the course of proceedings in court.

2. The 1st defendant is the appellant and he is the son of one Unnooli who had another son by name Kunhikanaran and a daughter by name Thirumala. The daughter of Kunhikanaran is the plaintiff and the children of Thirumala are defendants 2 to 4, the only survivor among the three children of Unnooli being the 1st defendant. The plaintiff, who is the grand-daughter of Unnooli, claimed a share in the property of her grand-mother on the footing that according to the customary law which governed the parties who are Thiyyas of Quilandy she was entitled to such share. Defendants 2 to 4 do not appear to have contested the suit or claimed a share. The 1st defendant pleaded that there was no custom as set up by the plaintiff and that the Hindu Mithakshara law applied to the parties on the basis of which he alone was entitled to inherit the estate of Unnooli. Thus, the main issue was as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to inherit on the basis o