Tiruchendur Sivathwaja Matam through Huqdars and Others vs Sami Bhattar and Others

Rajagopalan, J.—The short point for determination was whether the brother''s daughter or the brother''s daughter''s son was the preferential

heir to the estate of the late Subbiah Bhattar. The Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (II of 1929) enumerates certain classes of heirs

specifically and gives them a defined place in the order of preference for purposes of inheritance. It may be that the logic that underlay that

statutory change in the order of inheritance may justifiably be extended to provide for propinquity and not sex as the deciding factor for establishing

rights of inheritance; but the statutory provisions specifically enumerating specified classes of heirs cannot be extended in that manner by Courts. It

is for the Legislature to decide whether a brother''s daughter should be given precedence over a brother''s daughter''s son.

Act II of 1929 as the basis of the appellants'' claim does not avail. There can be no other legal basis either. The learned advocate for the

appellants very rightly admitted that the question should really be concluded by Rajah Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur Vs. Rajah Surnani

Venkata Purushottam Jugganadha Gopala Row Bahadur and Others, It is well-settled law in this presidency that a male bandhu is entitled to

preference over a female bandhu, even though the latter is nearer in degree. An attempt to challenge the correctness of that decision failed before

Ramesam, J., in Avadai Ammal v. Ramalinga Reddiar (1925) 97 1.C. 314. In any event, Rajah Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur Vs.

Rajah Surnani Venkata Purushottam Jugganadha Gopala Row Bahadur and Others, being the decision of a Bench binds me, and that, as I have

pointed out above, concludes the question at issue.

The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. No leave.