AVUDAI AMMAL Vs. RAMALINGA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this second appeal is whether the son's daughter of a Hindu is entitled to preference to brother's daughter's sons in the matter of succession to his property. The 3 defendant is the son's daughter and the respondents are the brother's daughter's sons. This question was not raised in the Courts below, but the second appeal is admitted as a pure question of law and for the same reason I have allowed it to be argued.

(2.) The contention for the appellants briefly is that both the rival claimants are bandhus and no preference should be given to male bandhus over female bandhus but that the order should be determined in accordance with the principles applying to bandhus in general. Mr. K.V. Krishnaswami Aiyar, who appeared for the appellants, argues that all older cases in which it is laid down that male bandhus are entitled to preference over female bandhus whatever the nearness in degree may be have lost their weight in view of the recent decision of the Privy Council. He refers to Khenchava V/s. Girimallappa A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 209 but I am unable to see how this decision can be said to throw any doubt on the weight of the decisions of this Court in which it was held that the female bandhus can succeed only after all the male bandhus are exhausted namely, Lakshmanammal v. Tiruvengada Mudali [1882] 5 Mad. 241. Narasimma V/s. Mangammal [1890] 13 Mad. 10. Chinnammal V/s. Venkatachala [1892] 15 Mad. 421, Sundarammal v. Rangasami Mudaliar [1895] 18 Mad. 193, Venkatasubramaniam Chetti v. Thayarammah [1898] 21 Mad. 263. Rajah Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur V/s. Rajah Surenani Venkata Purushothama Jagannadha Gopala Row Bahadur [1908] 31 Mad. 321.

(3.) This case far from being in his favour sounds against him. At page 577 Lord Phillimore refers to the decision in Narasimma V/s. Mangammal [1890] 13 Mad. 10 in which a father's sister was postponed to a mother's brother on the ground of general preference of male bandhus. Then His Lordship points out that this decision was quoted without disapproval before their Lordships and this Board in the case of Vedachela Mudaliar V/s. Subramania Mudaliar A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 33.