The main legal point established in the judgment is the relaxation of the burden of proof required to establish a customary usage under S.30 of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, and the evidentiary value of documents and oral evidence in proving the existence of the customary usage.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs. They filed the suit for partition. Plaint B schedule property originally belonged to one Chadayan Pathiru. Pathiru died leaving a son, Paulose, and two daughters Rajamma and Thankamma. Plaintiffs contended that no streedhanam was given by Pathiru to his daughters. The case is that the properties of Pathiru devolved on all his three children. Plaintiffs submitted that the Travancore Christian Succession Act (Regulation II of 1092), for short the Act, is not applicable to Pathiru and his children being Protestant Christians of Neyyattinkara Taluk and that by virtue of a customary usage prevalent among the community, all the children both male and female are entitled to equal shares in the properties of their parents. The plaintiffs are assignees of the rights of Rajamma and Thankamma.

2. The contesting respondents submitted that the Act is applicable to Rajamma and Thankamma and as such they have no share in the properties of their parents.

3. The trial court after considering the evidence in the case held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the custom pleaded by the plaintiffs to establish that the daughters are also entitled to an equal share with the sons in the property of their parents. Since this vital fact was not proved, the trial court negatived the right of the plaintiffs to get partition of one-third share in the plaint schedule property.

4. In regard to an extent of 64 cents there was a sale deed executed by the son Paulose in favour of Thankamma and her husband. The sale deed is Ext.A1. It is dated 1-4-1109. Subsequently, Thankmma along with Rajamma executed a sale deed to the plaintiffs in regard to the said 64 cents Thankamma obtained under Ext.A1 and the one-third share in B schedule properties which Rajamma was entitled. Thus a sale deed was executed for 1 acre 7 cents in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition on the basis of this sale deed. Plaintiffs were allowed 42 2/3 cents in plaint B schedule property.

5. The defeated plaintiffs filed an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court also agreed with the trial court that Rajamma and Thankamma had no right in the property left by their father. Nevertheless, on the basis of the sale deed, the appellate court also allowed 42 2/3, cents to the plaintiffs. Of course, the District Court further directed the trial court to go into the question of the actual extent of B schedule property and to allot 1/3rd of the actual extent of B schedule property. This the appellate court did because in the sale deed, Ext.A1, even though a specific extent of 64 cents is stated, it was further stated in the sale deed that this 64 cents is one-third of 1 acre 92 cents which was held by Pathiru and subsequently devolved on Paulose on the death of Pathiru. Now the dissatisfied plaintiffs appeal.

6. The root question that has to be decided in this appeal is whether the Act in regard to succession is applicable to Pathiru and his children. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of S.30 of the Act, the parties (the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs) are not governed by the provisions contained in the Act.

7. The Christian community in Kerala is not an equable or even unit. It is certainly not a homogeneous unit. There are different sects and sub sects, having their own peculiarities even in matters of inheritance and devolution of properties. Codification of laws relating to succession and allied matters for the Christians was undertaken only early in this centuary. Before that the only source of law for the courts to resolve disputes was custom. Custom was the guiding rule and it was often difficult of proof. When the law was codified by enacting a uniform code for all Christians in Travancore, some sections and localities were left out of their ambit, obviously to be governed only by the rule of custom. Now I shall quote S. 30 of the Act.

"Sections 24, 28 and 2