Judgment :- 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of his suit for partition on the ground that the Travancore Kshatriya Act, 1108, under which partition was claimed does not apply to the plaintiff's family. 2. The plaintiff and defendants are Pandalais. The only question is whether Pandalais are Malayala Kshatriyas as defined by the said Act. S.2(1) of the Act states that Kshatriyas includes the members of all communities commonly known or recognised as Malayala Kshatriyas. Kunjan Pillai in the Travancore Census Report, 1931, Vol. 1, page 374 states: "Samantas are considered to be another class of Kshatriyas having a lower status than even the Thirumulpads. They wear no sacred thread". Nagam Aiya in his Travancore State Manual, 1906, Vol. II, page 346, referring to the sub-divisions of Samantas says: "The chief sub-divisions are (1) Adiyodis, (2) Unathiris (3) Pandalais, (4) Eradis, (5) Vallodis and (6) Nedungadis". The late Krishnan Pandalai who was for some time a judge of the Travancore High Court as well as of the Madras High Court and who has written a book entitled "Marumakkathayam Law of Inheritance and Succession" which was his thesis for his Doctorate swore to two affidavits, certified copies whereof have been marked in the case as Exts. AJ and AK, clearly indicating that Pandalas are Malayala Kshatriyas. There are a few documents evidencing partition among Pandalais produced in the case and marked as Exts. AW and AY and a gift deed Ext. AZ, wherein the parties describe themselves as Malayala Kshatriyas. On the above material we are satisfied that Pandalais come within the ambit of the definition of Malayala Kshatriyas in the Travancore Kshatriya Act, VII/1108. In this view, the decree of the court below dismissing the suit should be and is hereby set aside and the appeal allowed. The case is sent back to the court below for fresh disposal according to law and after considering the other issues raised. 2. There is no appearance for the respondents and we make no order for costs. We must, however, place on record our appreciation of the assistance rendered by Sri C.K. Sivasankara Panicker who acted as amicus curae at our request. 3. Refund court fee.