Under Hindu law, the first-born son of a father succeeds to the estate in preference to younger sons, regardless of the seniority of the mothers' marriages, provided the wives are of the same class.

Judgement

Appeal from a decree of the High Court (Nov. 8, 1877) affirming a judgment and decree of the district Judge of the Court of North Arcot (March 29, 1877) whereby it was decided that the Respondent was entitled to recover possession of the Bangari polliam.

The facts appear in the judgment of their Lordships.

Leith, Q.C., and Bowring, for the Appellant, contended that by the custom of the family and caste, which on the evidence must be held to be established, he and Chandrasekhara, as the sons of the first or royal wife of Ramadasappa and his surviving widow, were entitled to succeed to the polliam in

05 Law. Rep. 8 Ind. App. 1 ( 1880- 1881) Pedda Ramappa Nayanivaru V. Bangari Seshamma Nayanivaru

preference to the Respondent, who though elder in age was the son of a younger wife. The custom is in accordance with the general Hindu law ; and even if the evidence fails to support the custom the Appellant is by that law entitled to succeed. As to the position of the first wife by Hindu law, and the priority which ordinarily obtains among wives and their sons, see Ramalakshmi Ammal v. Sivanantha (14 Moores Ind. Ap. Ca. 570;); Bhujangrdv D. Ohorpade v. Malojirav D. Ghorpade (5 Bomb. H. C

R. 161 Law Rep. Ind. Ap. Sup. Vol. p. 1.) ; Rajah Bughonath Singh v. Rajah Hurrehur Singh (7 S.

D. A. (Beng.) 126,); Menu, c. ix. si. 106, 107, 123, 124, 168, 169.

Mayne, for the Respondent, relied upon the concurrent findings in his favour of the Courts below, as to the custom. The claim under the general Hindu law was not put forward then, and is not established by the authorities cited.

Leith, Q.C., replied.

The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Sir Montague E. Smith—

This appeal arises in an action brought by Bangari Seshamma against his half-brother, Pedda Bamappa, to recover possession of the important polliam of Bangari. Several points, which resulted in issues in the Courts below, have been disposed of in a manner which does not render them the subjects of appeal. The facts which relate to the question which alone has been argued before their Lordships are few. It appears that Ramadasappa was the poligar of this polliam. It had been for several centuries in his family, had been resumed by the Government, and had been restored to him, but nothing turns on that resumption and restoration. Ramadasappa married four wives; the first two wives died, without issue, before his marriage with his third and fourth wives. The marriage with Subbama, his third wife, and with Venkatamma, his fourth wife, took place on the same day. There is now no dispute that the marriage with Subbama was prior in point of time. The Appellant, Pedda Bamappa, is the son of the third wife; the Respondent, Seshamma, is the son of the fourth wife, Venkatamma, but was born before his half-brother, Bamappa. Bamappa had an elder brother of the whole blood, Chandrasekhara, also junior to Seshamma, who, upon his fathers death in 1866, was put by the Government into possession of the polliam. He died in the year 1876, having retained possession during his lifetime. Upon his death, Bamappa, the Appellant, was put into possession, and thereupon the present action was brought by Seshamma. It is only necessary to mention Chandrasekhara in order to account for the possession between the death of Ramadasappa, the father, and the bringing of the action. It is conceded that this possession is not material to the question which arises in this case, that question being whether the Respondent, who was first-born son of Ramadasappa, though by the fourth wife, is entitled to succeed to the fathers estate, in preference to the Appellant, who was born afterwards, his mother being the third arid senior wife, and being, it was contended, in the same position as a first-married wife, by reason of the two former wives having died before her marriage.

The general question as to the right of succession in the case of sons born of different wives was decided by this Committee in the ca