KOSHI Vs. VELAYUDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Second Appeal on behalf of the 3rd defendant appellant, Mr. K. P. Abraham, the learned counsel, contests the findings of both the subordinate courts to the effect that the Velans of Ambalapuzha taluk follow the Makkathayam system of inheritance.

(2.) THE question arises in this way. THE 3rd defendant was holding certain properties under a mortgage executed by a Vela woman of ambalapuzha by name Kutti. THE 3rd defendant also claims to have obtained a sale from the sister of Kutti on the ground that the sister of Kutti is her legal heir and that he has obtained full rights to the property.

(3.) IN this Second Appeal Mr. K. P. Abraham, the learned counsel, contended that the documentary evidence relied upon by the subordinate courts and more especially Exhibits F and E of the years 1072 and 1101 cannot be accepted as representing the true state of affairs. IN particular, Mr. Abraham contended that the document of udampady, Exhibit E of the year 1101, must have been by a band of enthusiastic men belonging to this community who were more inclined to follow the Makkathayam system of inheritance, and wanted to wriggle out of the Marumakkathayam system.