Judgment :- 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. This mortgage executed by Kutti in favour of the 3rd defendant is now sought to be redeemed by the husband of this Kutti on the ground that he is the legal heir of his deceased wife who was following the Makkathayam system of inheritance. Therefore the controversy between the parties was as to the system of inheritance that is applicable to the Velans of this Ambalapuzha area. 4. Both the trial court as well as the learned Additional District Judge on a reference to various documentary evidence as also the direct oral evidence adduced in this case, have come to the conclusion that Velans of Ambalapuzha Taluk follow the Makkathayam system of inheritance. In this view both the courts have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff who is the husband of Kutti is the legal heir to the properties of Kutti and he is entitled to ask for redemption of the suit mortgage outstanding in favour of the 3rd defendant. 5. 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. 6. Exhibit E of the year 1101 has been read out to me by Mr. 6. Exhibit E of the year 1101 has been read out to me by Mr. Abraham almost in extenso: Whatever may be said about the enthusiasm of the persons who figured in that document, there is this hard fact that two at least of the signatories to Exhibit E, viz., Pws. 4 and 5, have given evidence about the circumstances under which the document was executed and have also given further evidence about the system of inheritance followed by the Velans of Ambalapuzha Taluk. Mr. Abraham, the learned counsel, relied upon the statement contained in the Travancore Census Report, 1931, Part I, Para.555 at page 386. The substance of what is stated therein is that the Velans follow different systems in different areas and it is stated in particular that Makkathayam is followed in Kottayam, Muvattupuzha and Meenachil taluks; mixed system is followed in Chirayinkil taluk and Marumakkathayam system is followed in the other taluks. Mr. Abraham places considerable reliance on the absence of any reference to the Ambalapuzha area as coming within the earlier part of the statement, viz., where Makkathayam is stated to be followed. He also places reliance on the last part of the statement that Marumakkathayam is followed in the other taluks. Therefore he contends that Ambalapuzha is not mentioned as an area where Makkathayam is followed. Therefore, according to him, it will come in the description "other taluks" where Marumakkathayam prevails. There may appear to be prima facie some force in this contention. One can certainly give credit to the author of this report who has taken considerable pains and has devoted some care. But that report itself takes note of the fact that Velans in different areas follow different systems of inheritance. But we are concerned in this case with the Velans of Ambalapuzha taluk. The fact that the report states that Velans in other taluks not mentioned in the earlier part, that is extracted above, follow Marumakkathayam system, does not necessarily lead me to the conclusion that the Marumakkathayam system alone is followed in all the other areas. 7. Apart from the oral evidence adduced in this case to the effect that Makkathayam is followed by Velans of Ambalapuzha taluk and which has been accepted by both the subordinate courts, there is the hard fact about the recitals contained in the document of 1101, viz., Exhibit E, though no doubt, Mr. 7. Apart from the oral evidence adduced in this case to the effect that Makkathayam is followed by Velans of Ambalapuzha taluk and which has been accepted by both the subordinate courts, there is the hard fact about the recitals contained in the document of 1101, viz., Exhibit E, though no doubt, Mr. Abraham contended that it is brought into existence by a band of enthusiastic men who wanted to rebel out of the Marumakkathayam system. Giving due consideration to the document, the statement in this document that appeals to me is the one contained in Clause.28. What is stated in Clause.28 is that the said Velans are following at present the Makkathayam system and it also says that the said Makkathayam system has been followed from generations. Unless this document is challenged on the ground that this recital is a deliberate falsehood - and such a contention has not been raised nor established in this case - in my opinion, the recitals in Exhibit E deserve very considerable care and attention at the hands of the Court and in my opinion both the subordinate courts have rightly given due importance to this recital in the document which has come into existence long before any controversy arose between the Velans of this place. In fact, I do not find any controversy among the Velans themselves of this area about the system of inheritance. It must be remembered that the controversy is set up by the 3rd defendant-appellant, who is a third party who does not belong to this community. Both the courts have also adverted to the other evidence in this case and, in my opinion, the findings of both the subordinate courts are supported by the evidence adduced in this case. 8. The Second Appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs. No leave.