Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J - (1.)A question of importance relating to bandhu succession under the Mitakshara system of inheritance has been the subject of two conflicting decisions in this Court and it is for the purpose of resolving the conflict that this second appeal has been placed before the Full Bench. The conflicting decisions are those to be found in Chinna Pichu Aiyangar v. Padmanabha Aiyangar and Kesar Singh V/s. Secretary of State for India .
(2.)The last male owner of the estate involved in this second appeal was one M. Chenchi Reddi, who died long ago leaving a widow Chennamma. She took the estate as his heir, and died on 24 October, 1935. On her death, the estate devolved on the nearest reversioner. Who among the several claimants is the nearest, is the question which the Court has to determine. The competition was between three sets of claimants. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 claimed to be M. Chenchi Reddi's father's father's son's sons, that is to say, the father's paternal aunt's son's grandsons. The second defendant claims to be M. Chenchi Reddi's mother's father's son's son's son, that is, the maternal uncle's grandson. The fifth plaintiff is M. Chenchi Reddi's father's daughter's son's daughter's son, that is, the sister's son's daughter's son. While the relationship of the fifth plaintiff stands admitted, the relationship of plaintiffs 1 to 3, and that of the second defendant was only assumed for the purpose of the decision. Both the Courts below have concurred in holding that even if the relationship set up by them is true, they are remoter reversioners than the fifth plaintiff and must accordingly be postponed to him.
(3.)There are two appellants in this second appeal. The first appellant was the first defendant, but she admittedly has no manner of right, to the estate. The second appellant was the second defendant in the suit. Of the two respondents the first was the fourth plaintiff in the suit. She is the mother of the fifth plaintiff; but being a female, she can come in only after all the male bandhus of the propositus are exhausted. The second respondent is the fifth plaintiff. His admitted relationship to M. Chenchi Reddi is that indicated in table I, while that of the second defendant will appear from table II, hereunder. The common ancestor is indicated by the letters CA in the, duplicate table, while the propositus and the claimant are indicated by the letters P and C respectively. In the intermediate links D represents a female and S a male. The contest now, as indeed it was in the Courts below, is between the fifth plaintiff and the second defendant. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 were eliminated in the Courts below as they are the pitru bandhus of the last owner, whereas the fifth plaintiff and the second defendant are both his atma bandhus.