Judgment :- 1. The plaintiffs in O. S.130 of 1964 are the appellants. They instituted a suit for partition under the following circumstances. The first plaintiff is a member of a Nambudiri Illom called Mangattu Illom. Defendants 1 to 31 are members of the said Illom and the suit properties belong to the said Illom. The first plaintiff in 1105 married Narayanan Poti belonging to South Canara. He is admittedly a Thulu Poti. Plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the children of the first plaintiff by that marriage. The plaintiffs claim 7/38 shares in the plaint properties on the ground that in spite of the first plaintiff's marriage with Narayanan Poti she and her children continue to be the members of the Mangattu Illom and are therefore entitled to get 7/38 shares in the plaint properties because of the Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958 (Act 27 of 1958). S.2 (b) of that Act defines Illom. S.2 (b) and the Explanation thereto are relevant and we shall extract them: "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) ... (b) 'illom' means all the members of a Nambudiri joint family with community of property and includes a 'mana'. Explanation. A female shall on her marriage cease to be a member of the illom in which she was born if she marries in her community and becomes a member of the illom on her husband." 2. The plea of the plaintiffs is that the husband of the first plaintiff Narayanan Poti being a Thulu Poti he is not a member of her community and therefore she continues to be a member of the Mangattu Illom. It was therefore argued that Narayanan Poti is not a Nambudiri and so long as the first plaintiff has not become a member of the Illom of her husband she continues to retain her interest in the properties belonging to Mangattu Illom. It is admitted that the marriage of the first plaintiff with Narayanan Poti was in 1105 even before the coming into force of the Travancore Malayala Brahmins Act (Act 3 of 1106). It is unnecessary for the purpose of this case to decide whether a Thulu Brahmin is a Malayala Brahmin within the meaning of the Travancore Act 3 of 1106 or a Nambudiri within the meaning of the Kerala Act of 1958. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this case to decide whether a Thulu Brahmin is a Malayala Brahmin within the meaning of the Travancore Act 3 of 1106 or a Nambudiri within the meaning of the Kerala Act of 1958. It is settled law that Malayala Brahmins including Nambudiris are governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law except to the extent modified by usage or custom or by statute. In Vasudevan v. Secretary of State (11 Madras 157 at pp. 160 161), it was observed thus: "According to the evidence on both sides, succession is traced among Nambudris through males and property passes from father to son, whereas among Nayars, succession is traced through females and property descends from mother to daughter. Thus the mode of trading succession and the devolution of property are in accordance with Hindu law and contrary to marumakkatnayam usage. Again, legal marriage is the basis of the law of succession among Nambudris as among Brahamans of the East Coast, whilst among Nayars there is no recognised connection between marriage and inheritance. Thus, the notion Of paternal relation founded upon legal marriage as the cause of inheritance obtains both under Hindu law and among Nambudri Brahmans. Further, a Nambudri woman, in common with a Brahman on this side of the ghats, takes her husband's gotram upon her marriage and passes into his family from that of her father; and perpetual windowhood and incapacity to remarry on her husband's death are the incidents of marriage both among Nambudris and Brahmans of the East Coast." This principle was followed by the Travancore High Court in Kesavan Krishnan Potti v. Dewan Vasudavar and Others, 12 TLR 157. If the legal effect of the marriage of the first plaintiff with Narayanan Poti is to make her a member of the family of Narayanan Poti and terminate her membership in Mangattu Illom neither the Travancore Act 3 of 1106 nor the Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958 contains any provision to revive her membership in the Mangattu Illom. It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether Thulu Potis are Nambudiris for the purpose of the Nambudiri Act of 1958, The view taken by the courts below is therefore correct. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. But we make no order as costs.