JUDGMENT T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. The result of this second appeal will depend upon the question as to what is the law of inheritance followed by the tarwad involved in this case a tarwad of Thandans. The Trial Court held, relying on the decision in Mohammed Abdul Kadir v. Appi ( 1962 KLT 340 ), that the general law of inheritance of Thandans was marumakkathayam; and that if a party claimed that a particular tarwad followed the makkathayam system, he must adduce evidence which satisfied the well known tests that the custom was ancient, obligatory, etc. to displace the general law. Since there was no such evidence in the case, the Trial Court held that the system applicable was marumakkathayam, the general law. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge took a contrary view. He held that since there was a previous litigation in the family relating to a half of the property in O. S. No. 182 of 1122, wherein it was held that the system of inheritance applicable to the tarwad was makkathayam, and since there was no evidence contra that the system to be applied was marumakkathayam, the law applicable to the case was the makkathayam system of inheritance. The correctness of this conclusion by the Subordinate Judge is being challenged in the second appeal. 2. The counsel of the appellants contends that the law applicable to Thandans is marumakkathayam. He draws my attention to Marumakkathayam Law by M. P. Joseph. The author says at page 451 in Para.11 that Thandans or Kolthatchans follow the pure marumakkathayam system of inheritance. The author refers to A. S. No. 213 of 1084 decided by the Travancore High Court against a decree of the District Court of Trivandrum. A passage is also extracted from that judgment to the effect that it is admitted that the ordinary law governing Thandans is marumakkathayam. Evidently, this passage shows that in that particular case it was admitted by the parties that the law applicable was marumakkathayam. A similar decision appears in Kochu Bhagavathi v. Chinna Appi ( 1955 KLT 398 ). In that case, a judgment of 1084 of the High Court of Travancore was marked as an exhibit; and the decision of the Travancore - Cochin High Court proceeded on that basis. A similar decision appears in Kochu Bhagavathi v. Chinna Appi ( 1955 KLT 398 ). In that case, a judgment of 1084 of the High Court of Travancore was marked as an exhibit; and the decision of the Travancore - Cochin High Court proceeded on that basis. Here, I may also refer to the decision of this Court in Mohammed Abdul Kadir v. Appi ( 1962 KLT 349 ) relied on by the Munsiff. In the last case, Velu Pillai J. has not held that Thandans follow the marumakkathayam system of inheritance as the Munsiff thinks: what the learned Judge has held is only that the parties to the case belonged to a tarwad of Thandans which followed the marumakkathayam system of inheritance. 3. Now, I shall refer to a passage from Travancore State Manual by Sadasyatilaka T. K. Velu Pillai. At page 863, the author says that Thandans are known in the south as Uralis; and that their marriage customs and rules of inheritance differ to some extent according to locality. The author says further that makkathayam is followed in Quilon and Karthikappally, Marumakkathayam in Karunagapally and the mixed system in the other taluks. From this what appears is that there is no general system of inheritance for Thandans for the whole of Travancore; and that the law might vary from place to place. 4. Bearing this in mind, I shall analyse the position in the present case. This case comes from the Quilon area, so that the system of inheritance might be makkathayam. Moreover, to the previous litigation, all persons interested in the property were parties; and it was decided therein that the law applicable to the family was the makkathayam system of inheritance. Still further, no material evidence contra has been adduced in this case. 5. I may just state a few facts here. Pappu and Ummini were a brother and a sister; and they had self acquisitions. Pappu died; and the earlier litigation related to his half share in the property. Pappu's wife and children claimed on the basis of the makkathayam system of inheritance that they were entitled to the share left by Pappu. The members of Pappu's tarwad, the children, grandchildren, etc. of Ummini and the other members of the tarwad, were parties to that litigation; and they claimed that the system of inheritance that applied to the tarwad was marumakkathayam. The members of Pappu's tarwad, the children, grandchildren, etc. of Ummini and the other members of the tarwad, were parties to that litigation; and they claimed that the system of inheritance that applied to the tarwad was marumakkathayam. This contention was found against. The present litigation relates to the half share of Ummini; and the claim of the appellants is against the decision in the earlier litigation, to which they were themselves parties. 6. From all these, what appears is that the system of inheritance applicable to this family of Thandans is makkathayam. I may also add in conclusion that to prove this the evidence need not establish that the custom is ancient, obligatory etc, What the evidence need establish is only that the system of inheritance applicable to the case is either makkathayam or marumakkathayam or the mixed system. This is not a question of one system displacing another system, the general law. In this view, the decision of the Subordinate Judge is correct. The same is confirmed; and the second appeal is dismissed with costs of the first respondent.