The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between a custom in derogation of established Hindu Mithakshara law and a system of Hindu Mithakshara law modified by custom, emphasizing the application of customary law and the importance of documentary evidence in establishing status and legal framework.

1. These cases are heard and disposed of together, because the questions involved are the same and most of the parties are also the same.

2. The suits giving rise to the appeal (O. S. No. 139 of 1956) and the second appeal (O. S. No. 39 of 1958) were for cancellation of some alienations on the ground that they were not binding on the plaintiff in both the suits, who was a minor at the time of the alienations. The properties belonged to Velappan Asari; the father of the plaintiff. He obtained them in a family partition in 1108; and four years thereafter he died leaving his widow, Chinnammal, and the plaintiff, his only minor daughter. The widow had brothers, one of whom is a defendant in both the suits. He has a son, who is also a defendant in O. S. No. 39 of 1958. In 1121 the widow executed Ex. P-2 in O. S. No. 139 of 1956 in favour of a Nagappan Nair, whose widow and children are defendants 1 to 4 therein. Chinnammal's brother was also a party to the document because of an indemnity clause to indemnify the purchaser. The brother's properties were also included in the sale deed. The consideration for the document was Rs. 4,500, of which Rs. 500 are alleged to have already been paid as advance. The rest, Rs. 4,000, are recited to have been paid before the Sub-Registrar. The plaintiff sought to set aside this alienation on the ground that it was not supported by consideration and necessity; and the lower court has refused her prayer. The plaintiff has filed the appeal.

3. In 1122 the widow executed a dhananischayam deed (settlement), Ex. D-14, in favour of her brother's son, who was a minor then represented by his father. This document recites that the widow was entitled to a half right in the properties; and that she was settling that right on her nephew out of love and affection for him and since she had already decided to get her daughter married by him. In April 1950 a sale deed, Ex. D-2, was executed by the said nephew, his father and the widow for self and as guardian of her minor daughter in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 39 of 1958, who are wife and husband respectively. The consideration was Rs. 5,500, out of which Rs. 2,500, were paid before the Sub-Registrar and the rest, Rs. 3,000 were reserved with the vendees to be paid subsequently to the nephew for purchasing properties in the names of the plaintiff and himself. The cash payment was to make ornaments and to meet the expenses of the marriage of the plaintiff with the nephew, alleged to have been settled, and also for constructing a house for the residence of the couple after their marriage. The case of the alienees is that a sum. of Rs. 2,500 out of the reserved amount of Rs. 3,000 was later on paid, which was utilised for purchasing properties in the names of the plaintiff and her husband. The rest, Rs. 500, are admittedly not paid. The plaintiff claimed that her mother had no right in the properties under the law and custom applicable to them; that the alienations were not supported by consideration or necessity; and that they were consequently not binding on her. The trial court disallowed these contentions; but, the lower appellate court has accepted them and decreed the suit. The second appeal is by the alienees. It may be noted that there is an indemnity clause in this document as well; and properties belonging to the uncle of the plaintiff, who, it will appear hereinafter, was the prime mover in these transactions, were also included in the sale deed.

4. The plaintiff is admittedly a Hindu Kammala (carpenter). She claims that she is a Hindu Malayala Kammala; whereas, the alienees claim that she is a Hindu Pandi Kammala. The law applicable to Pandi Kammalas is pure Hindu Mithakshara law as applied to Hindus in South India; whereas, the law applicable to Malayala Kammalas is Hindu Mithakshara law modified by custom. Therefore, the first question for consideration is whether the plaintiff is a Malayala Kammala or a Pandi Kammala.

5. The firs