Oldfield, J.

1. The appellants 1st, 2nd, 4th to 6th plaintiffs, claimed the suit property as heirs, defendants as transferees from 1st defence witness, alleged by them to be entitled to the succession. Defendants had also other defences connected with a will, a surrender and an adoption, but they have relied here only on their denial of plaintiffs right to inherit; and therefore it alone need be considered.

2. The property belonged originally to one Karuppan, who died leaving his widow Kalu and mother Neela. 1st, 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are grandsons of Vella, a sister of Neelas husband; and 4th plaintiff is the grandson and 5th and 6th plaintiffs the great grandsons of another sister Kuppachi. 1st defence witness, under whom defendants claim, is an agnate of Karuppan, connected with him through his great grandfather Koratpura Konni. It is clear and it is conceded that plaintiffs, tracing through women, Vella and Kuppachi, are not heirs under the Mitakshara Law. The question is whether they have, as they contend, established a custom, as binding in the Ezhuva or Thiya caste to which they belong, in accordance with which they can inherit.

3. Such a custom is not alleged in gener