The specific personal law followed by the parties is crucial in determining the entitlement to a share in family property.

1. The appellant is the 1st defendant in a suit in partition. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are his (married) sisters, and the 4th defendant the son of a late sister. In the plaint, the plaintiff has described the parties to be Kuravas following 'Makkavazhi' and all the defendants also have in their written statements described themselves as followers of 'Makkavazhi'. Applying therefore the Hindu Law to the parties, the Munsif found the plaintiff not entitled to a share in the family property and dismissed the suit; but, on appeal, the Additional District Judge, Mavelikara, has relied on Cherampennu v. Neelan (1963 K. L. T. 725) to hold the personal law of Kuravas in Travancore to be Marumakkathayam law, and discharged the decree and remitted the suit for decision de novo.

2. In 1963 K. L. T. 725, there was no controversy as to the personal law of the parties thereto. It is common knowledge that in communities like Kuravas the personal law of the family may vary from place to place. There may be Kurava families following Marumakkathayam law, and others following the Hindu law, or Hindu law modified by custom. Here, all the parties have in their respective pleadings described themselves as followers of'Makkavazhi'. The question not having been in issue in the 1963 K. L. T. 725 case, the observations in that decision have to be confined to the facts of that case.

The following observation of Earl of Halsbury L. C., in Quinn v. Leathem (1901 A. C. 495, 506) is pertinent here:

"every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found."

The decision in 1963 K. L. T. 725 has no relevance to this case where all parties are agreed that they are followers of 'Makkavazhi' law.

3. In the result, the decision of the Additional District Judge is discharged and the Munsiff's decree is restored to effect. I make no order as to costs here. Allowed.