M.C.Mahajan, J.

(1) THESE eight appeals arise out of a common judgment of the High court of Madras dated the 30/10/1945, given in seven appeals preferred to it against the judgment of the District Judge of Madura in four suits, O.S. Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 7 of 1941, all of which related to the zamindari of Bodinaickanur `in the Madura district and the properties connected therewith. The appeals were originally before the Privy council in England, some by leave of the High court and others by special leave and are now before us for disposal.

(2) THE zamindari of Bodinaickanur is an ancient impartible estate in the district of Madura, owned by a Hindu joint family. The genealogical tree of the family is as follows :--

(3) THE zamindari was last held by Kamaraja II of the second branch. He died on 16/02/1941, without male issue, but leaving him surviving a widow Chinnathayi alias Veeralakshmi Ammal, and members of the family belonging to the third, fourth and fifth branches. Succession to the zamindari is admittedly governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture modified by a family custom according to which the younger son by the senior wife is preferred to an eider son by junior wife. According to this custom T.B.S.S. Rajaya Pandiya Naicker of the third,branch was entitled to the zamindari after the death of Kamaraja II of the second branch. His claim was denied by the widow and by Kulasekara Pandiya Naicker of the fourth branch, both of whom claimed the zamindari on different grounds. It was alleged by the widow that the zamindari was the separate and exclusive property of her husband and that being so, she was entitled to it under the rule of Mitakshara applicable to devolution of separate property. Kulasekara of the fourth branch claimed it on the basis that Sundata Pandiya Naicker of the third branch who died in 1893, had separated from the family and had renounced his and his descendants rights of succession to the zamindari and the third branch having thus lost all interest in the joint family zamindari, he was the next person entitled to it by survivorship.

(4) ON 28/04/1941, the revenue officer allowed the claim of Kulasekara and held that he was entitled to possession of the zamindari and the pannai lands (home farm lands) which were in the possession of Kamaraja II. As regards one of the villages comprised in the zamindari, viz., Boothipuram, the title of the widow was recognized. In pursuance of this order, Kulasekara got into ,possession of the zamindari and the pannai lands after the death of Kamaraja II. Boothipuram village remained in the possession of the widow. Dissatisfied with the order of the revenue officer, the parties have instituted the suits out of which these appeals arise.

(5) ON the 22/06/1941, the widow (Chinnathayi) brought suit No. 5 of 1941 for possession of the zamindari against Kulasekara of the fourth branch, Rajaya and his uncle Seelabodi Naicker of the third branch, T.B.M.S.K. Pandiya Naicker and Kamaraja Pandiya Naicker of the fifth branch, on the allegations set out, above.

(6) ON the 4/07/1941, she and her sister instituted suit No. 2 of 1941 against the same set of defendants for cancellation of the deed of release that had been executed by her and her sister in favour of Kamaraja II on the 9/06/1934, in respect of the pannai lands that were in the possession of Kulasekara of the fourth branch under the order of the revenue officer.

(7) THE third suit, O.S. No. 6 of 1941, was brought by Rajaya of the third branch on 27/08/1941, for possession of the zamindari, Boothipuram village and the pannai lands, against Kulasekara of the fourth branch and the two plaintiffs in suit No. 2 of 1941, on the allegation that under the rule of lineal promogeniture he was the person next entitled to succeed to the zamindari after the death of Kamaraja II.

(8) THE last suit, O.S. No. 7 of 1941, was instituted by Kulasekara of the fourth branch on 13/10/