NANU Vs. NANI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred 'by the second Defendant in a suit for variation. Plaintiff is the daughter of deceased Kumaran through his second wirier. The first Defendant is his son through his first wife. Plaintiff: claimed that the plaint schedule item No. 1 and the building standing therein, being item No. 2 in the plaint, belonged to Kumaran and after Kumaran's demise she was entitled to a half share in it. The parties are blacksmiths belonging to the Kammala community.

(2.) THE ; law governing the Kammala community is Hindu Mithakshara Law and whenever a party claims that there were certain customs which modify it the same have to be proved by reliable evidence. Lilly Mercilin Lewis v.' Chanji Nani, J, 954 Ker LT 631. (A), supports this position. There claim was put forward by a female member. In paragraph 9 of the judgment it is as follows:

(3.) Apart from the Plaintiff here, the witnesses relied upon by the lower Court are P. Ws. 4 to 6. P. W. 4 who proves Ext. B while deposing that females were entitled to shares admits that in his family partition tire sisters were not made parties. P. Y. 5 is a member of the family of the parties and have joined in the partition effected between the first Defendant and other male members of their; family in 1103 as per Ext. I. lie admits that female members were not made parties to it.