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 pleading