KOCHU BHAGAVATHI Vs. CHINNA APPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder in this case was a Thandan (Tree climber) by caste and on his death his mother, as the heir got herself impleaded as his legal representative. Then his wife and children also applied to be impleaded on the ground that the separate properties of a Thandan will go to his wife and children and not to his tarwad. The Court below held that thandans are followers of Marumakkathayam law of inheritance and that the mother was the legal representative to be impleaded. The appeal is against this order. As early as 1084, the High Curt in Ext. A. Judgment had expressed the view that Thandans follow the Marumakkathayam law of inheritance. It was the appellants case that though they are Marumakkathayees a custom has grown up in the community so that the separate and self acquired properties of a male, would go to his wife and children. There is no sufficient evidence in this case to show that there is such a custom. Dws. 1 to 3 who speak to this custom have not produced nay document to show this. Dw. 2 even said that his Karanavans properties were not given to his wife and children. There is only Ext. 1 of 1118 in which the wife and children of a deceased Thandan dealt with his properties. But this solitary instance is not sufficient to establish a custom. In 1954 KLT 631 , this court had discussed this question and mentioned how custom is to be set up and proved. The evidence here is wanting to prove the custom. So I confirm the order of the court below and dismiss this appeal with costs.