(1.) THE last male owner of the property in suit was one Bishen. THE plaintiff who claims his property is his sister s son. THE defendant who is in possession is the son of his father s uncle s daughter. According to the table of Bandhus given at page 785 of Mayne s Hindu Law, 7th Edition, the plaintiff comes in as No. 3 in proximity of relationship as compared with the defendant who is No. 8. In view of this authority it appears to me that the decision of the Court below was right. I dismiss this appeal with costs.