Judgment :- 1. The first plaintiff is the appellant and the sole defendant, the respondent. The suit was for declaration of title and possession over A & B schedule properties. The properties originally belonged to one Ammalu Kovilamma She was a kshatriya woman. She died intestate. The first plaintiff had married her. He is a Namboodiri. According to him, he is entitled to rights in the property as an heir of his deceased wife. The respondent is the brother of deceased Ammalu Kovilamma. The trial Court decreed the suit upholding the appellant's claim to the property as an heir of Ammalu Kovilamma In appeal by the defendant, the decree of the trial Court was set aside on the ground that the appellant could not claim, to be an heir to Ammalu Kovilamma since the marriage was not registered. Hence this second appeal. 2. The only substantial question of law that arises in this appeal is whether the marriage between a Namboodiri male and a kshatriya female is invalid for want of registration. 3. The short question raised in the appeal can be disposed of with reference to S 3(b) of the Travancore Kshatriya Act. I read the section with the third proviso: "3 The conjugal union of xx x x (b) a Kshatriya male or female with a non-kshatriya female or male, as the case may be, where such union is permissible according to recognised usage, shall be deemed to be a valid marriage for the purpose of this Regulation, if registered in the manner hereinafter provided for: x x x x Provided further, that all marriages in force on the date of the commencement of this Regulation shall be valid irrespective of registration." The section is clear in its import. It states that a marriage between a kshatriya female and a non-ksbatriya male, if such union is permissible according to recognised usage, shall be deemed to be a valid marriage for the purpose of this regulation, if registered in the manner hereinafter provided for. In this case though there was a marriage, it was not registered. A plain reading of the section is enough to hold that there was no valid marriage between the first plaintiff and the deceased Ammalu Kovilamma. However, the appellant's counsel submits that the words "shall be deemed to be" import a fiction and registration is insisted only as a mode of proof. A plain reading of the section is enough to hold that there was no valid marriage between the first plaintiff and the deceased Ammalu Kovilamma. However, the appellant's counsel submits that the words "shall be deemed to be" import a fiction and registration is insisted only as a mode of proof. Absence of registration, according to him. will not render the marriage invalid. I am afraid, this submission is self-destructive. When you import a fiction, you try to make something which is not real, real. In other words, the fiction imported in a provision or statute confers reality or validity to something which it lacks in the absence of that fiction. But for the deeming provision in the section, a marriage between a kshatriya female and a non-kshatriya male will not be valid, for the consequences of the marriage to flow; it is the fact or registration that makes the marriage valid and the consequences of the marriage to follow; one of the consequences being the right of the husband to succeed to bis wife's property. If the marriage had been valid, the appellant would have been an heir of Ammalu Kovilamma. Absence of registration robs him of the right to claim heirship to his wife's property. The element of registration was designedly introduced to safeguard the interests of persons belonging to two different sects. Insistence of registration is to give validity for the marriage; it is not a mere ritual as is contended by the appellant's counsel. It has a set purpose. That purpose will be defeated if marriages between a kshatriya female and a non-kshatriya male is held to be valid in the absence of registration. T seek support for this conclusion from third proviso under which marriages in force on the date of commencement of the Regulation are held to be valid irrespective of registration. The intention was to make marriages solemnised till then valid without registration and to emphasise the need for registration to make marriages valid subsequent to the passing of the Regulation I hold that the Court below was right in denying to the first plaintiff the decree prayed for. 4. I dictated the above judgment on July 30th, 1982 dismissing the appeal. Then I found that the Travancore Kshatriya Act was repealed by the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, for short, the Kerala Abolition Act. 4. I dictated the above judgment on July 30th, 1982 dismissing the appeal. Then I found that the Travancore Kshatriya Act was repealed by the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, for short, the Kerala Abolition Act. I wanted to ascertain the impact of this repeal on the case and hence posted the case as spoken to on 2nd August 1982. Heard the counsel again. The repeal under the Kerala Abolition Act is a simple repeal without any saving clause. Therefore, cases under the repealed Act have to be disposed of under the said Act. The decision reported in 1979 KLT. 810 is in point, where proceedings under the Travancore Nair Act, 1110 were held to be continued under the same Act, despite its repeal by the Kerala Abolition Act. 5. The impact of the Hindu Succession Act on this case needs also to be considered. This Act applies to all Hindus 'Marumakkathayam Law' is defined as the system of law applicable to persons who, but for this Act, would have been governed, among other Acts, by the Travancore Kshatriya Act. Under S.15(1)(a) of the Act, the property of a female Hindu dying intestate would devolve on the husband. Under S.17(ii) (b) in a case like this, the property would devolve on the husband. If this Act were applicable to the case on hand, the appeal will have to be allowed and the suit to be decreed. But it is not necessary to go into the application of the above sections of this Act, for the reason that the marriage in this case is not a valid marriage under the Travancore Kshatriya Act, wherefore the husband does not get a right to claim any right as an heir. 6. I answer the question of law raised against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.