The main legal point established in the judgment is that the customary law governing Namboodiries, as well as the provisions of the Kerala Nambudiris Act, 1958, influenced the court's decision regarding the partition of Illom properties and the alienation of family property.

The appellant is the first defendant in a suit for partition. The plaintiff in the suit got a sale deed executed from defendants 13 to 22 in respect of their share in the properties of the Illom of which they are the members. The 13th defendant is a son of Sankaranarayanan Potti, a brother of the first defendant. The defendants 14 to 19 are the minor children of the 13th defendant. The 20th defendant is a brother of the 13th defendant. The 21st defendant is the wife of the 13th defendant and 22nd defendant, a major daughter of the 13th defendant. In pursuance of the right conferred under Exhibit P-1, the assignment deed the plaintiff filed a suit for partition alleging that there was an oral partition prior to the assignment in his favour. The first defendant contested the claim and denied that there was any oral partition in the Illom. He, however, put forward a case that Sankaranarayanan Potti, his brother had released his right in favour of the first defendant in the 1092, and therefore, defendants 13 to 22 had no rights over the property of the Illom.

2.The trial Court did not accept the case of oral partition. Neither the contention that there was a release of rights by Sankaranarayanan Potti was accepted by the trial Court. The Court, however, held that the assignment of the rights in favour of the plaintiff conveyed only the shares of defendants 13 and 20 to 22 who were the major members of the branch and not of the minors, defendants 14 to 19. A preliminary decree for partition was accordingly passed in respect of 4/22 share in the plaint A schedule property, subject to some reservations.

3.Appeals were filed as A. S. Nos. 93 and 104 of 1968 before the Sub-ordinate Judge, Attingal by the first defendant and the plaintiff respectively. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the first defendant, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff in part and held that the plaintiff was entitled to get 10/22 share in the plaint A schedule items inclusive of the minors' interest. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the first defendant against the above decree.

4. On the plea of oral partition the parties are bound by the concurrent finding by the Courts below. The first defendant also has failed to establish that there has been any release by Sankaranarayanan Potti of the rights of his branch. The result is that the family should be considered as joint on the date when Ext. P-1 sale deed was executed.

5. The point for decision is whether by the execution of the sale deed, Ext. P-1 and the rectification deed, Exhibit P-2, the interest of defendants 13 to 22 or any of them passed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case appears to be that the defendants 1 to 22 being Namboodiries are governed by Hindu Law as modified by custom and as members of joint Hindu family, defendants 13 to 22 were entitled to assign away their rights in the family properties. This position is disputed by the first defendant. He would contend that Namboodiries are governed by the customary law, though on some matters the customary law followed by them is on a line with Hindu Mithakshara law. Reference is made in this connection to the decision, Omana Pandala v. Kesavaru Sambhuvaru, 1970 Ker LJ 973. That was a case where an attachment of the share of a member of an Illom was challenged on the ground that there was no separate share which could be attached or alienated. Subramanian Poti J. held that the rules underlying the decision of the Full Bench in Ammalu Amma v. Lakshmy Amma, (1966 Ker LT 32 (FB)) are applicable in the case of Namboodiries also. Though a contention was raised on the basis of certain decisions of the Travancore High Court that the Namboodiries are governed by the Hindu Mithakshara law, the Court did not accept the plea and observed as follows:-

"No doubt, in certain matters, they are governed by the Hindu Mithakshara Law as modified by custom. But, in regard to holding of property by the Illom, Namboodiries are not cer