THOMMAN Vs. KONNUNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question for determination is this second appeal is whether the appellant's contention that under the system of inheritance obtaining among the Vala Community in this area a daughter is entitled to a share equal to that of a son in her father's estate has been established or not. THE lower appellate court decided that the sons inherit to the exclusion of the daughters and that is the decision that is challenged before me.

(2.) THE Valans form one of the two important fishing castes of Cochin, the other being the Arayan or Kadalarayan and according to mr. Padmanabha Menon in his history of Kerala, Volume III P. 468: "while the Valans follow a mixed form of inheritance the Arayans observe Makkathayam. THE Valans divide their self-acquired property equally among their nephews or ananthiravans and sons" Mr. Padmanabha Menon was one of the leading lawyers of cochin and the book was edited and published after his death by another eminent lawyer, the late Mr. T. K. Krishna Menon. THEre can be no doubt that if a custom as alleged by the appellant obtained in the community it would have found specific mention and I cannot attribute the absence of a reference to such a custom to anything other than the absence of the custom itself.

(3.) THE issue relating to the alleged custom is issue No. 1 (1): "has the deceased Kutty's daughter, Pennamma any right in the properties according to the custom of succession among the members of the Vala community?". and the oral evidence adduced is certainly of no assistance of arrive at any definite conclusion. THE trial court has stated: "the oral evidence in this case is of no use as the witnesses do not speak to any particular instance in support of either party's case". and the learned District Judge has endorsed that view by saying: "the oral evidence of custom adduced in the case is meagre and shabby".