Judgement

Consolidated Appeals (Nos. 84 and 113 of 1936) from two decrees of the High Court (April 2, 1935) substantially affirming two decrees of the District Judge of Tinnevelly (January 3, 1929).

These consolidated appeals raised the question as to the right of succession to the Uttumalai Estate,

Law. Rep. 65 Ind. App. 93 ( 1937- 1938) Balasubrahmanya Pandya Thalaivar V. M. Subbayya Tevar

230

situated in the Tinnevelly district of the Madras Presidency. Each of the following three claimants who now appeared before the Board had filed separate suits in assertion of his claim (1.) Navanithakrishna Marudappa Tevar, who claimed by adoption to the father of the last male holder; (2.) Subbayya Tevar; and (3.) Balasubrahmanya. The last two denied the validity of the adoption and each of them claimed to be the nearest sapinda of the last male holder. One of the principal questions was as to the priority among atma bandhus in a Mitakshara succession dispute, and the point for determination, in the event of the adoption of the first claimant being held invalid, was whether the fathers half-sisters son (Balasubrahmanya) or the mothers brother (Subbayya Tevar) was the preferential heir.

The