JUDGMENT : C.S.Sudha, J. What is the law of inheritance or succession that is applicable to Kammalas domiciled in Cochin? Before the formation of the United State of Travancore and Cochin by virtue of the Covenant dated the 29th May, 1949, entered into between the Rulers of Travancore and Cochin, was the personal law applicable to Kammalas domiciled in Travancore and Cochin the same? Before the State Reorganization Act, 1956 came into being, was the personal law applicable to Kammalas domiciled in Malabar, a Part A State, being part of Madras, the same as that in Cochin and Travancore? Is there any classification of Kammalas of Cochin as pandi kammalas, malayala kammalas and ordinary kammalas? Are they governed by the same personal law or different personal law? Let us examine. 2. These second appeals are before us based on a reference order dated 13/04/2007 of a learned single Judge, according to whom, there are conflicting views regarding the personal law applicable to kammalas of Cochin and also their form of marriage. In the opinion of the learned Judge, important questions of law are involved, namely, the personal law applicable to kammalas of Cochin; whether there is a sub division of kammalas into malayala kammalas and ordinary kammalas ; what is their form of marriage ; whether the form of marriage alone or payment of 'sthreedhanam' in addition to the form of marriage would take away the right of the daughters to a share in the family property, which aspects are required to be decided by a Division Bench. Thus, the matter has come up before us. 3. The aforesaid two appeals arise from a preliminary decree and judgment in O.S.No.462/1985 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge's court, Ernakulam, by which a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property has been granted. The appellants in S.A.No.659/1996 are defendants 2, 3, 9, 12 and the heirs of the tenth defendant. The 11th defendant in the suit is the appellant in S.A.No.751/1996. 4. The plaint averments in brief are: -The two plaintiffs; defendants 10 to 13; Krishnan, the father of defendants 1 to 8 and husband of the ninth defendant and late Dakshayani, the mother of defendants 14 to 18 are the children of late Kochukuttan @ Kittu (hereinafter referred to as Kittu). The parties are malayala kammalas, governed by Hindu Mitakshara law modified by custom. The parties are malayala kammalas, governed by Hindu Mitakshara law modified by custom. Kittu had a brother named Sankunni. Kittu was married to Ooli and Sankunni to Lakshmi. Kittu passed away in the year 1938 and his brother Sankunni in the year 1952. Lakshmi died in the year 1971 and Ooli died in the year 1974. The brothers had purchased 30 cents of land as per Ext.A1 sale deed dated 13/01/1109. Out of the 30 cents, about one cent was surrendered for widening the Mullasseri canal. The remaining 29 cents of land is the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, as per the custom prevailing among the malayala kammalas, the sons and daughters have equal right in the family property, unless the daughters are given away in marriage in the kudivaippu form on payment of sthreedhanam. The widow has no right in the family property. When a male member dies without any issues, the heirs of the male member inherit the property left by the deceased to the exclusion of the widow. The custom among the community is antique, continuous and invariable. The plaintiffs; late Dakshayani and the 13th defendant Devaki were not married off in the kudivaippu form of marriage. 4.1. Sankunni died in the year 1952 without any issues. Therefore, the plaint schedule property devolved on the children of his brother, Kittu. Late Dakshayani and the 13th defendant Devaki were married off during the life-time of Kittu. The plaintiffs were married off after the death of Kittu. None of the daughters were given sthreedhanam and their marriage was solemnized in the 'Sambandham form'. At the time of marriage, it was agreed that the daughters would also have an equal right in the plaint schedule property along with the sons and hence sthreedhanam was neither asked nor given. 4.2. The plaintiffs and defendants have been enjoying the plaint schedule property jointly. The plaintiffs as well as the family members used to reside in the plaint schedule property and were given usufructs from the property. It was the eldest son of Kittu, namely, Krishnan, who was managing the plaint schedule property till his demise in the year 1967. The plaintiffs claiming a share in the plaint schedule property, filed the suit for partition. According to them, they are malayala kammalas governed by Hindu Mitakshara law modified by custom. It was the eldest son of Kittu, namely, Krishnan, who was managing the plaint schedule property till his demise in the year 1967. The plaintiffs claiming a share in the plaint schedule property, filed the suit for partition. According to them, they are malayala kammalas governed by Hindu Mitakshara law modified by custom. It is also alleged that after the death of Sankunni, his right in the suit property devolved on the children of Kittu as Lakshmi, the widow, had no right in the estate of Sankunni. At best she had only a right to claim maintenance. Hence the suit for partition claiming 1/7 share in the plaint schedule property. 4.3. The first defendant, son of Krishnan, filed written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiffs. 4.4. Defendants 2, 3 and 4, who are also the children of late Krishnan and his widow, namely, the ninth defendant, filed a joint written statement contending that Krishnan was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of 7-3/5 cents of land on the north-eastern portion of Sy.no.524/8 and the building therein as per partition deed no.94/1961 of SRO, Ernakulam. The first defendant has no right in the suit property as he had assigned his right in the suit property in favour of defendants 2 and 3. Buildings bearing no.961 and 962 were constructed by late Krishnan and defendants 2 to 9 respectively with their own funds. Therefore, according to the aforesaid defendants, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the property. 4.5. Defendants 10 and 12 filed a joint written statement contending that the personal law applicable to the parties is Hindu Mitakshara law pure and simple. There is no custom or usage that has modified the law as far as the parties to the suit are concerned. Married daughters are transplanted into the family of their husbands by virtue of which they become members of their husband's family. A widow who is a member of the family is entitled to a share in the family property. A widow who has no issues is entitled to succeed to the assets of her husband. The marriage of all the daughters of Kittu were solemnized in the kudivaippu form, that too, after giving sthreedhanam and ornaments. The sambandham form of marriage is a custom prevalent among 'marumakkathayees' only which cannot be pressed into service among the 'makkathayees'. A widow who has no issues is entitled to succeed to the assets of her husband. The marriage of all the daughters of Kittu were solemnized in the kudivaippu form, that too, after giving sthreedhanam and ornaments. The sambandham form of marriage is a custom prevalent among 'marumakkathayees' only which cannot be pressed into service among the 'makkathayees'. Kittu's daughters ever since their marriage, have no right, joint possession or enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The buildings situated in the plaint schedule property exclusively belong to the defendants. There was never any agreement in the family to give a share in the property to the daughters as alleged in the plaint. 4.6. The eleventh and thirteenth defendant filed separate written statements supporting the case of the other contesting defendants. The 11th defendant filed an additional written statement contending that the parties are Cochin kammalas and that the personal law applicable to the parties is Hindu law. 4.7. A replication was filed by the plaintiffs reiterating the allegations in the plaint and also alleging that the documents created by the widows of Kittu and Sankunni, namely, Ooly and Lakshmi, in favour of the defendants are not binding on them. They denied the contention in the additional written statement of the eleventh defendant that the parties to the suit are Cochin kammalas. It has also been alleged that among malayala kammalas, there is no distinction based on their place of domicile. 5. The trial court on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record found Lakshmi, the widow of Sankunni, to have no right in the property and that after the death of Sankunni and Kittu, the entire property has devolved on the children of Kittu. According to the trial court, the defendants had failed in establishing that the plaintiffs; late Dakshayani and the 13th defendant, Devaki, had been married in the kudivaippu form on payment of sthreedhanam and so the plaintiffs were entitled to ignore the documents executed among the other members of the family and claim partition. Therefore, a preliminary decree was passed by which, the children of Kittu were allotted 1/7 share each in the plaint schedule property. 6. Defendants 2, 3, 9, 12 and the legal representatives of the 10th defendant filed A.S.No.14/1989 and the 11th defendant filed A.S.No.13/1989 before the District court, Ernakulam. Therefore, a preliminary decree was passed by which, the children of Kittu were allotted 1/7 share each in the plaint schedule property. 6. Defendants 2, 3, 9, 12 and the legal representatives of the 10th defendant filed A.S.No.14/1989 and the 11th defendant filed A.S.No.13/1989 before the District court, Ernakulam. The appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. The appeals were allowed in part. It was held that the right of Sankunni had devolved on his widow Lakshmi and that she had absolute title over the property, which she in turn had gifted in favour of the sons of Kittu and so the share of Sankunni was not available for partition. As far as the share of Kittu was concerned, it has been held that the parties being malayala kammalas governed by Hindu Mitakshara law modified by custom, daughters are also entitled to a share in the property. For arriving at such a conclusion, the appellate court relied on the decisions in Kittu Eacharan v. Ouseph Ouseph, 1948 TLR 734; Parameswaran Asari Sanku Asari v. Kochumathevi Lekshmi, 1957 KLT 1020 ; Thankammal v. Madhavi Amma, 1966 KLT 181 and Damodaran v. Palu, 1986 KLT 1259 . 7. Aggrieved by the finding that the parties to the suit are governed by Hindu Mitakshara law modified by custom, defendants 2, 3, 9, 12 and the legal heirs of the tenth defendant have filed S.A.No.659/1996 and the eleventh defendant, S.A.No.751/1996. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, have filed cross appeals/cross objections in both the S.As. challenging the decree passed by the appellate court to the effect that on the death of Sankunni, his widow, Lakshmi became the absolute owner of one-half share of the property. 8. The two appeals were admitted on the following substantial questions of law, which are – A. Have not the courts below erred in law in thinking that the law governing kammalas of Cochin is a modified customary form of Hindu Law? B. Are not the kammalas of Cochin governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law pure and simple? C. Have not the courts below erred substantially in law in holding that, among the kammalas of Cochin a married daughter is entitled to a share of family property? B. Are not the kammalas of Cochin governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law pure and simple? C. Have not the courts below erred substantially in law in holding that, among the kammalas of Cochin a married daughter is entitled to a share of family property? D. Are not the courts below substantially wrong in law in thinking that the decisions in 1966 KLT 181 and 1986 KLT 1259 are applicable to the kammalas of Cochin? E. The parties to the case being kammalas of Cochin have not the courts below erred in ignoring the decisions of the Cochin High Court and the Travancore-Cochin High Court relating to the personal law governing kammalas of Cochin cited before them? F. Have not the courts below cast the burden wrongly on the question of adverse possession arising in the instant case? G. Have not the courts below erred substantially in law in thinking that the plaintiffs' claim is not barred by adverse possession and limitation? H. Have not the courts below erred in law in decreeing the suit on the pleadings and in the nature of the evidence available in the case? 9. Heard Adv.S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Adv.Sethumadhavan, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 10. According to the learned Senior counsel for the appellants/the contesting defendants (the defendants), both the trial court as well as the appellate court have substantially erred in applying the personal law applicable to the parties in the case. As a result of the fundamental mistake committed by the courts, the finding and conclusions have apparently gone wrong calling for an interference by this Court. On the other hand, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the same is based on a correct interpretation of the law applicable and hence calls for no interference. Therefore, let us first consider, the law that is applicable to the parties in this case. 11. As noticed earlier, in the plaint, the specific allegation is that the parties are malayala kammalas governed by Hindu Mitakshara law modified by custom. The allegation regarding the personal law applicable, is disputed by the defendants, who contend that the parties are kammalas of Cochin and the personal law applicable to the parties is Mitakshara law pure and simple. 11. As noticed earlier, in the plaint, the specific allegation is that the parties are malayala kammalas governed by Hindu Mitakshara law modified by custom. The allegation regarding the personal law applicable, is disputed by the defendants, who contend that the parties are kammalas of Cochin and the personal law applicable to the parties is Mitakshara law pure and simple. They deny the allegation of the plaintiffs that the parties are governed by Hindu law or Mitakshara law modified by custom. The allegation that the parties are malayala kammalas is not disputed or denied by the defendants in their written statements. It is true that the 11th defendant has filed an additional written statement much after all the defendants filed their written statements, contending that the parties are Cochin kammalas. This is not of much significance since the parties have no case that they do not belong to Cochin or that they are not domiciled in Cochin. The plaintiffs when examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively, have admitted in their cross examination that they are members of the ashari ( ) community born and brought up in the State of Cochin. PW2 admitted that for generations, the family has been residing in Cochin. Therefore, the pleadings as well as the evidence on record make it clear that the parties are kammalas domiciled in Cochin. 12. An argument was advanced by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs that the defendants also admit the existence of the custom pleaded in the plaint because, had their contention only been that the parties are governed by Hindu law pure and simple, they would have stopped at that. On the other hand, they have also taken up a contention in their written statements that the daughters of Kittu were married off in the kudivaipu form after payment of streedhanam and as they have been transplanted into the family of their husbands, they cannot claim any share in the property. This argument does not seem to be correct. Para 3 of the written statement of defendants 10 and 12, whose contentions are seen adopted by the other contesting defendants also, says -“…... The personal law applicable to plaintiff and defendants is Hindu Mitakshara Law pure and simple…....”. In para 5 it is contended -“…………. The personal law applicable to the plaintiffs and defendants is Hindu Mitakshara (Hindu Law) pure and simple. The personal law applicable to plaintiff and defendants is Hindu Mitakshara Law pure and simple…....”. In para 5 it is contended -“…………. The personal law applicable to the plaintiffs and defendants is Hindu Mitakshara (Hindu Law) pure and simple. No custom or usage has modified the same so far as the parties to the suits are concerned. Married daughters are transplanted into the family of their husband's by virtue of which they became member of their husband’s family. A widow who is a member of the family is entitled to a share in the family property in general. The widow who has no issues are entitled to succeed to the assets of her husband. All the marriages that have been conducted in the family of the plaintiff as well as the defendants are in Kudivaipu Form that too, after giving Streedhanam and ornaments to the females of the family. The averment that plaintiffs and defendants are members of the same family is absolutely false.” In para 6 it is contended“……. Since Streedhanam and ornaments were given to the respective females there was no occasion or need for giving any assurance that the daughters of Kittu had equal right over his assets as that of the male issues. Hence the allegation that Streedhanam was not asked for nor given is untrue and incorrect. The further allegation that the marriages of the daughters of Kittu were conducted in sambadha form is highly artificial. The sambadha form or system of marriage is a peculiar custom prevalent among the Marumakkathayees only which cannot be pressed into service among the Makkathayees.” 13. Here it would be apposite to refer to O.VIII Rules 3, 4 and 5 CPC. Rule 3 says that it shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but he must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth. Rule 4 says that where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Rule 5 says that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted. Rule 5 says that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted. The aforesaid contentions are obviously made in compliance with the aforesaid provisions. They are not admission of the custom pleaded in the plaint, as argued on behalf of the plaintiffs. 14. Before we go into the question as to the law applicable to the parties, let us consider whether there is a sub-division of kammalas into pandi kammalas, malayala kammalas and ordinary kammalas as urged by the plaintiffs. Chapter XVIII of the book, 'Cochin Tribes and Castes' (Vol.I) written by L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer published in the year 1909 deals with kammalas, their origin; migration; internal structure of the caste; marriage customs; inheritance; caste assembly etc. Regarding internal structure of caste, at page 342, it is stated that the kammalans, who are also called Nanku parisha or Panchalans, are the artisan classes, living in all the villages and towns of the State. They are strictly speaking, one caste, the members of which are divided into six occupational groups or sub-castes, namely, (1) Marasaris or workers in wood (carpenters), (2) Kallasaris (stone masons), (3) Kollans (blacksmiths), (4) Moosaris (bell-metal workers), (5) Thattans (goldsmiths), and (6} Tolkollans (leather workers). The Marasaris are again sub-divided into Thachans (wood-cutters), Avens, Poozhi Asaris, Ettila Parisha, Ircha Thachans (sawyers of wood), and Kolli Vetties. The Kollans are also subdivided into Palisa Kollans, Katachi Kollans, and Theepori Kollans. The Kallasaris and Moosaris have each a subdivision, namely, Silpi Asaris (image makers) and Chembu Kotties (copper workers). The minor subdivisions are based chiefly on occupation, and are mere endogamous septs, the members of which, with the exception of the Silpi Asaris, are inferior in social status to those of the main divisions. This affords evidence to the fact how caste formation is based on occupation. According to the learned author, there are two forms of marriage, namely, tali tying, podamuri or sambandham as among the Nairs and Izhuvans (page 345). As far as inheritance is concerned, it is stated at page 347 that, the law of succession to property is in the male-line, that is, from father to son. According to the learned author, there are two forms of marriage, namely, tali tying, podamuri or sambandham as among the Nairs and Izhuvans (page 345). As far as inheritance is concerned, it is stated at page 347 that, the law of succession to property is in the male-line, that is, from father to son. Women have no share in the family property; but, in the event of any partition being effected in the family, the unmarried daughters have each a share, and none at all when they marry. 14.1. The book by name 'Castes and Tribes of Southern India’, Vol-III-K written by Edgar Thurston and K.Rangachari deals with kammalas of various States. This book originally published in the year 1909 was reprinted in the year 1987. The book deals with the kammalas of Travancore, Malabar etc. in detail. There is no mention of any subdivision of kammalas into pandi kammala, malayala kammala or ordinary kammala. However, at page 106, there is reference to Kammalan (Tamil). At page 107 it is stated that Tamil Kammalans are divided into three endogamous territorial groups, Pandya, Sozia (or Chola), and Kongan. The Pandyas live principally in the districts of Madura and Tinnevelly, and the Sozias in the districts of Trichinopoly, Tanjore, Chingleput, North and South Arcot, and Madras. The Kongas are found chiefly in the districts of Salem and Coimbatore districts. In some places, there are still further sub-divisions of territorial origin. Thus, the Pandya Tattans are divided into Karakattar, Vambanattar, Pennaikku-akkarayar (those on the other side of the Pennaiyar river), Munnuru-vittukarar (those of the three hundred families), and so forth. They are further divided into exogamous septs, the names of which are derived from places, e.g., Perugumani, Musiri, Oryanadu, Thiruchendurai, and Kalagunadu. The Kammalans are made up of five occupational sections, viz., Tattan (goldsmith), Kannan (brass-smith), Tac'chan (carpenter), Kal-Tac'chan (stone-mason), and Kollan or Karuman (blacksmith). The name Panchala, which is sometimes used by the Tamil as well as the Canarese artisan classes, has reference to the fivefold occupations. At page 125 reference is made to kammalan (Malayalam). Referring to Kammalans of Malabar (page 126), it is stated, the five artisan classes, or Ayinkudi Kammalans, are made up of the following: - Asari, carpenters Karuman, blacksmiths. Musari, braziers Chembotti or Chempotti, Tattan, goldsmiths