Is Thibaut's rule about proof of custom applicable to HMA, 1955 ?
(i.e. - while proving a custom of marriage / divorce)
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109236/
Madras High Court
Kunhambi And 6 Ors. vs Kalanthar And Ors. on 24 March, 1914
The mode of proving the existence of custom in any particular case is thus alluded to by Thibaut System des Pandakten Rechts, I. P. 15 in a passage cited by Sir Erskine Perry (Perry's O.C. 118) " A custom therefore, to hold good in law, requires, besides the above negative conditions (viz, that the custom is not unreasonable and applies to matters which the written law has left undetermined) the following positive condition, namely, that the majority at least of any given class of persons look upon the rule as binding, and it must be established by a series of well-known, concordant, and, on the whole, continuous instances. How many examples are necessary to prove a custom cannot be laid down beforehand, neither is the number to be left to the arbitrary discretion of the Judge; but the point in each case is whether the common consent of the class in question is clearly demonstrated by the number of instances proved. These considerations are not exclusive of each other. One attention must be given to each of them and to any others that may be relevant under the Evidence Act to the questions of fact involved.
