P. Subramonian Poti, J.

1. The appellant before me in the S.A. is the plaintiff in a suit for partition. Originally there were only 2 defendants in the suit. Defendants 3 to 7 were later on added as additional defendants. Plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are, according to the plaintiff, members of a Hindu Mithakshara family, first defendant being the manager. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/3 and defendants 1 and 2 are together entitled to the remaining 2/3. The main dispute between the parties is about the law governing the plaintiff and defendants. "According to the first defendant, their family is not governed by the Hindu Mithakshara law, but the law governing Namboodiris, since their family has settled down in Hosdrug at a village called Pullur and adopted the customs, manners and usages, including the custom of impartibility. Therefore according to the first defendant, the suit for partition would not lie as partition cannot be had except by mutual consent. The second defendant supported the case of the plaintiff.

2. It may be necessary to refer to certain facts which are pertinent to the disposal of the case. The parties are Havik Brahmins of South Kanara District forme