Judgment :- 1. Though the second appeal was filed by three of the seven plaintiffs, two of them have subsequently died; and the sole surviving appellant is the third plaintiff. The question for consideration in the second appeal is what is the law of inheritance that obtains among the Valans of Travancore, whether makkathayam or marumakkathayam. The plaintiffs are the marumakkathayam heirs, whereas the contesting defendants the makkathayam heirs, of the acquirer of the property in dispute. The trial court, though inclined to hold that the law applicable to the community was makkathayam, held that the documents relating to the suit property indicated marumakkathayam. The lower appellate court, on the other hand, held that the law applicable was makkathayam; and that the indication in the documents contra was not conclusive. 2. Since this community did not have members having any considerable property, precedents are rare. The only decision available is Paily Thommen v. Ayyappan Kutty Konnunni (1955 KLT. 564) relating to the Valans of Cochin. One Judge of the Travancore-Cochin High Court has held therein that the Valans of Cochin follow a mixed form of inheritance, while the Arayans observe makkathayam. The learned judge has based his decision on some observations contained in the Cochin State Mannual, the Cochin Tribes and Castes and the Castes and Tribes of Southern India. 3. Valans constitute one of the fishing castes. There are four or five sub-castes in the fishing caste, Valan, Arayan or Katalarayan, Mukkuvan, Marakkan and Nulayan. The fishing caste in Cochin consists really of the first two, the members of the next two being, according to the Cochin Tribes and Castes by Anantha Krishna Iyer, Vol. I, page 231, sojourners from the sea coasts of Malabar and Travancore adjoining the Cochin State. The same work says that Valans follow a system of inheritance partaking of the character of succession from father to son and from maternal uncle to nephew, i. e., a mixed system of inheritance. I, page 231, sojourners from the sea coasts of Malabar and Travancore adjoining the Cochin State. The same work says that Valans follow a system of inheritance partaking of the character of succession from father to son and from maternal uncle to nephew, i. e., a mixed system of inheritance. Again, it says that among the Valans of Cochin self-acquired property is generally equally divided between the brothers and the sons, while ancestral property goes to the brothers; that among the Arayans succession is in the male line, i. e., the sons succeed to the property of their father; and that in the case of Mukkuvans also succession is in the male line in Cochin and South Malabar and in the female line in North Malabar. Sundara Aiyar in his Malabar and Aliyasantana Law has. appended a list of castes governed by makkathayam and marumakkathayam systems of inheritance as Appendix A at page 327. Among the makkathayam castes the author has included Mukkuvans in the south land he has included among the marumakkathayam castes also mukkuvans in the south. This appears to be a mistake. Mukkuvans in the south follow makkathayam, whereas Mukkuvans in the north follow marumakkathayam. That is what Anantha Krishna Iyer has stated in his work already referred to; and that appears to be the correct position. 4. Another work which may be usefully referred to in this connection is the History of Kerala by Padmanabha Menon. In Vol. III the author says that Mukkuvans are fishermen by profession; and that classes akin to this are the Valans and the Arayans. The author also observes that some of the Mukkuvans go by the name of Marakkans; and that while Valans follow a mixed form of inheritance, Arayans observe makkathayam. The Travancore State Manual by Velu Pillai, Vol. I, page 837 says that the Arayans are a fishing community; and that closely allied to them are the Marakkans, Mukkuvans, Nulayans and Valans, who are also fishermen castes. This work also says that these castes follow makkathayam. I may also refer to the Castes and Tribes of Southern India by Edgar Thurston. I, page 837 says that the Arayans are a fishing community; and that closely allied to them are the Marakkans, Mukkuvans, Nulayans and Valans, who are also fishermen castes. This work also says that these castes follow makkathayam. I may also refer to the Castes and Tribes of Southern India by Edgar Thurston. The author has relied on Anantha Krishna Iyer's work; and he says that inheritance amongst Valans partakes of the character of succession from father to son and from maternal uncle to nephew, the self-acquired property being divided equally between brothers and sons while the ancestral property going to brothers. I may also, in conclusion, refer to the Census Report of 1931, Part I, Vol. XXVIII. At page 380 it is stated that Arayans follow makkathayam; at page 383 Marakkans of Karunagappally are said to follow makkathayam, while those of Shertalai are said to follow marumakkathayam; at page 384 Mukkuvans are said to follow a mixed system of makkathayam and marumakkathayam; at page 384 again Nulayans are said to follow makkathayam; and at page 386 Valans are said to follow a mixed system of makkathayam and marumakkathayam. 5. What appears from the aforesaid works is that Arayans, Marakkans, Mukkuvans, Nulayans and Valans are fishermen communities; and that most of them follow makkathayam and some of them a mixed system of makkathayam and marumakkathayam. None of them is said to follow; marumakkathayam alone as claimed in the present case. The works referred to above also show that Valans, with whom I am directly concerned in this case, follow makkathayam and probably a mixed system of makkathayam and marumakkathayam. In this case the claim of the plaintiffs is that the law applicable is marumakkathayam; while the defendants claim that the system of inheritance applicable is makkathayam. I am inclined to think, in the light of the above discussion, that the law applicable is makkathayam. 6. It is then argued by the plaintiffs (and this appears to have found favour with the trail court) that the three documents concerning the suit property, Exx. A to C, are indicative of marumakkathayam. The property was acquired by two brothers, who left no children when they died. Their brother, Neelan, succeeded to the property after their death. He had five sisters and no children; and in Ex. A Neelan's sister's daughter and a sister's daughter's son have joined. Similarly, in Exx. A to C, are indicative of marumakkathayam. The property was acquired by two brothers, who left no children when they died. Their brother, Neelan, succeeded to the property after their death. He had five sisters and no children; and in Ex. A Neelan's sister's daughter and a sister's daughter's son have joined. Similarly, in Exx. B and C the names of the executants are shown with their uncles' names. Form these it is argued that the parties must have been followers of marumakkathayam. On the other side, other documents like Exx. II, V, VI and VII have been produced by the defendants, wherein the patties have given their names along with the names of their fathers. It is evident that it is not safe to go by the descriptions of names in these documents. 7. I therefore agree with the view of the lower appellate court and hold that the law of inheritance applicable to Valans of Travancore is makkathayam. The result is the second appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, I direct both parties to bear their respective costs. Dismissed.