JUDGMENT M.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Appellants are defendants 1 and 2. First appellant died and additional appellants 3 to 10 were impleaded, Plaintiff filed the suit for partition and a preliminary decree was passed by the Trial Court and it C has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 2. Plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are brothers. Third defendant is the son of the first defendant. Plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Cheeru and Ittianandan. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaint schedule property was obtained by Cheeru as per Ext. A6 assignment dated 21/10/1096 M. E. from her husband Ittianandan, that Cheeru executed Ext A2 settlement deed on 01/05/1951 in favour of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 reserving life interest to her, that Cheeru died on 13/04/1977 and that plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to the D property. Plaintiff claims 1/3rd share. Out of 37 cents of property, an area having 8. 50 cents was acquired by the State. Item 1 in the plaint schedule is 28.50 cents of property whereas Item 2 is the land acquisition amount awarded. Second defendant has supported the case of the plaintiff and he also claimed partition. Defendants 1 and 3 filed joint written statement contending that the property belonged to Achuthan, brother of Ittianandan, that when Achuthan died property devolved on his son Ayyappan and that the third defendant got assignment of Ayyappan's right in the property as per Ext. B1 dated 23/10/1980. Defendant 1 and 3 contended that Cheeru had no title or possession and that Ext. A6 is bad and consequently plaintiff cannot claim any right under Ext. A2. It is their contention that the parties are governed by Makkathayam law of inheritance and so Ittianandan will not get any right in the property which belonged to Achuthan. 3. It is common case that the property belonged to Achuthan as per Exts. A7 and A8. In view of the controversy between the parties with regard to the law of inheritance, point for consideration is whether Marumakkathayam law is applicable or Makkathayam law. If the Marumakkathayam law is applicable, the claim of the plaintiff has to be upheld. On the contrary if it is found that the applicability is Makkathayam law, the plaintiff has to be non suited. 4. If the Marumakkathayam law is applicable, the claim of the plaintiff has to be upheld. On the contrary if it is found that the applicability is Makkathayam law, the plaintiff has to be non suited. 4. Admittedly the parties are domiciled in Cochin Kanayannur Taluk. In Damodaran v. Madhavan XXXIX Cochin Law Reports 121 a Full Bench of the Cochin High Court held that Ezhavas of Cochin - Kanayannur Taluk follow Marumakkathayam law. For arriving at the above conclusion the Court relied on several treatises and prior decisions of the Court. Decisions in Ittimathu Chakko v. Augusty 18 Cochin 96. Hussan Kassam Dada Sait v. Dhakshayani 20 Cochin 427. Ramachandran v. Janaki, 26 Cochin 367 and Krishnan v. Narayanan, 29 Cochin 147 were referred to in XXXIX Cochin Law Reports 121. All these decisions relate to Marumakkathayee Ezhavas from the Cochin - Kanayannur Taluk. The Full Bench in XXXIX Cochin Law Reports 121 held that opinion expressed by the eminent authors referred to in the decision can be taken as a correct statement of the law governing the community and it can and has to be safely assumed that Ezhavas of Cochin - Kanayannur Taluk follow Marumakkathayam law of inheritance and succession. The decision reported in XXXIX Cochin Law Reports 121 has been relied on by this Court in Achuthan v. OBI, 1960 KLT 147 . In the above decision it has been held that there is a presumption that Ezhavas domiciled in Cochin - Kanayannur Taluk are governed by the Marumakkathayam system of inheritance. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants submitted that in the absence of any pleadings in the plaint that the parties are governed by Marumakkathayam law of inheritance the Courts below were not justified in jumping to the above conclusion. As the plaintiff can succeed only if it is established that the parties were following Marumakkathayam law of inheritance and as the very claim of the plaintiff is opposed by the defendants on the ground that Achuthan's right in the property could have devolved only on his son Ayyappan who executed Ext. B1 in favour of the third defendant, it was necessary on the part of the Court to have considered the law of inheritance governing the parties. B1 in favour of the third defendant, it was necessary on the part of the Court to have considered the law of inheritance governing the parties. Contention of the defendants is that as the plaintiff has not pleaded and proved the custom prevailing among the community and also in the locality, the Trial Court was not justified in drawing the presumption with regard to the law of inheritance governing the parties. But when a custom or usage regarding a family right or inheritance is brought to the notice of the Courts and the Courts have accepted its existence by taking judicial notice of further proof will not be necessary to establish it in subsequent proceedings. It is useful to refer to Rama Rao v. Raja of Pittapur AIR 1918 PC 81 where the Privy Council held thus: "When a custom or usage, whether in regard to a tenure or a contract or a family right, is repeatedly brought to the notice of the Courts of a country, the Courts may hold that custom or usage to be introduced into the law without the necessity of proof in each individual case." As it has been held in XXXIX Cochin Law Reports 121 and Achuthan v. OBI 1960 KLT 147 that Ezhavas domiciled in Cochin - Kanayannur Taluk are governed by marumakkathayam system of inheritance, really a presumption can be made to that effect and necessity of proof in each individual case need not be insisted upon by the Court. 6. There cannot be any two opinions that when a person pleads custom the burden is upon him to prove it by calling witnesses acquainted with the custom. But in a case where a particular custom has, by frequent proof in the court, become so common place the Courts can take judicial notice of it. In Ext. A6 itself it is mentioned that after the death of Achuthan the property devolved on his brother Ittianandan. This also is an indicative factor to hold that the parties are governed by Marumakkathayam law of inheritance. That being the position, contention of the defendants 1 and 3 that the plaintiff is not entitled to partition cannot be accepted. 7. The lower appellate Court has considered the documentary evidence in the case and held that Exts. A2 and A6 established beyond doubt that the property belonged to Cheeru as per Ext. That being the position, contention of the defendants 1 and 3 that the plaintiff is not entitled to partition cannot be accepted. 7. The lower appellate Court has considered the documentary evidence in the case and held that Exts. A2 and A6 established beyond doubt that the property belonged to Cheeru as per Ext. A6 and that she was in possession and enjoyment of the property during her life time and as per Ext. A2 settlement deed executed by her the right devolved on plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. Third defendant cannot get any right in the property as per Ext. B1 which was executed long after the death of his father. 8. The lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to equal shares in the property. The Trial Court has rejected the contention of the first defendant that the building was constructed by him alone pending his own money. This has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. That finding is one of fact and this Court cannot interfere. Concurrent findings of the Courts below are confirmed. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.