The court established that the custom of equal inheritance for sons and daughters must be proved and must derive its force from long usage to be valid. In the absence of proof of such custom, the principles of Hindu Mitakshara law apply.

1. The 9th defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff is a female belonging to the blacksmith community. Her case was that the plaint property, which belonged to her father's original family, was, along with other properties, divided by virtue of the decree in O.S. 206 of 1103 of the District Court, Anjikaimal and also of the decree in A.S. 9 of 1110 of the High Court. This property fell to the share of the defendants in that case. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 were the members of that group. Her father was one Chanji. Chanji had a son by name Cheriyathu, (Junior) who died in 1113, unmarried. On the death of Cheriyathu, the share of Chanji and Cheriyathu in the family property had devolved on the plaintiff. Under the decree in O.S. 206 of 1103, the deceased Cheriyathu (Senior) Chanji, Sankunny and Kuttappan formed one branch, that is the group consisting of the defendants in that case. As the sole surviving heir of the deceased Chanji, the plaintiff was entitled to one-fourth share of the family property. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 follow the Makkathaya system of inheritance. The 9th defendant had taken an assignment of the plaint schedule property in 1114 and she was in possession of the same. This deed was invalid so far as the plaintiff's one-fourth share was concerned, as she was not a consenting party to the same. The plaint property would yield an annual income of Rs. 200/-. The plaintiff was entitled to her share of the income for the past 3 years and also till the property was divided and she was put in possession of her share. She had also claimed compensation for certain waste, said to have been committed by the 9th defendant.

2. Defendants 5 and 6, two females, are similarly placed like the plaintiff. They are the wife and daughter of deceased Kannan, one of the sons of the deceased Sankunny, mentioned in O.S. 206 of 1103. They supported the plaintiff and claimed one-fourth share to which the deceased Sankunny was entitled. They also contended that the assignment in favour of the 9th defendant was invalid as they were not parties to the same.

3. The contention of the 9th defendant was that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 did not belong to the same family or branch. The plaintiff had already been married. After the marriage, she did not get any right in her father's properties. The allegation that the plaint property had been allotted to the branch consisting of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 was wrong. Neither the plaintiff nor defendants 5 and 6 had any right over the plaint property. The community to which the plaintiff belonged was governed by the Hindu Mitakshara law, according to which the plaintiff, a female member, would have no right over the family properties of her father after her marriage. At the time when the plaintiff's father died, he had a son by name Cheriyathu Kunju. After his death his share went to the other members of the family by survivorship. All the members of the family, who had rights in the property, had joined the document executed in her favour. The plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in this case.

4. The trial court found that the principles of justice, equity and good conscience are to govern the law relating to inheritance in the plaintiff's community, that the males and females were entitled to equal shares in their father's properties, that the plaintiff was, therefore, to get one-fourth of the property, that the waste alleged had not been proved, that the mesne profits will be only Rs. 30 a year and that the property was to be divided into 12 shares of which 3 shares were to go to the plaintiff, one share to defendants 5 and 6, and the remaining 8 shares to the 9th defendant. A sum of Rs. 408-8-0 discharged by the 9th defendant was allowed to be charged on the estate in favour of the 9th defendant to be contributed proportionately by the shares.

5. In appeal by the 9th defendant against this decree, the lower appellate court confirmed the trial