Under the Madras school of Hindu law, a male Bandhu is entitled to preference over a female Bandhu, even though the latter is nearer in degree.

( 1 ) DESPITE powerful flow of strong currents of new laws with modern trends, still Islands of archaic legal rights can survive. That is demonstrated in this case before us.

( 2 ) THE questions we are called upon to answer in this lettsrs Patent Appeal is whether among Pltri Bandus the mother, who is the Bandhu of the last male holder becomes the heir or her sons.

( 3 ) THE question arises in the following manner: Properties described in the plaint A and B schedules belonged to one Subbaraya who died in the year 1890. He left no issue behind him but only his widow, Kaveriamme. . That lady died in 1944, having executed a will in respect of the properties of her husband, bequeathing them to her sister s son, the first defendant in the present suit. Three persons claiming to be the Pitrf Bandhus of Subbaraya, who were entitled to Inherit his properties, have brought the suit for declaration of their title to the plaint schedule properties and for possession. We may here give the genealogical cable in order to understand the relationship of the three plaintiffs to the propusitus i. e. Subbiraya. Krishnayya (died) anandamma (married) Appavu subbaraya (died in 1918) swamlnatha Muthamma died 1910 1950 subbaraya (died 1890) (wife)Kaveriamma (died 1944 parasuram Chengalvaraya Krishna- Venkateswara Sadaslva (3rd (adopted to (died 1948) Muthy (2nd plaintiff) Plaintiff kumaraswami) (1st plaintiff)

( 4 ) SINCE their eldest brother, Parasuram had been adopted and their elder brother, Chengalvaraya had died, the three surviving brothers sought the reliefs as the plaintiffs. They contended the will and testament of Kaverlamma was invalid and did not convey any rights in the properties of Subbaraya to the first defendant, since Kaveriamma had only a widow s estate. Their mother muthamma died in the year 1950 and within 12 years thereafter they filed the suit on 10-12-1962.

( 5 ) THE first defendant, as we said, is the legatee under the willof Kaveriamma. The second defendant is his wife, who had sold certain items of these properties to defendants 3 to 6, who are also added as alienees. The seventh defendant is added after the filing of the suit.

( 6 ) THE defence was that the plaintiffs were not the nearest reversioners to Subbaraya, that the properties did not belong to him but belong to his widow, Kaveriamma, who had power to dispose them off under a Will. It is not necessary to refer to other contentions excepting to the principal one to the effect that the suit was barred by limitation. The bar of limitation was founded on the Contention that Muthamma did not inherit the properties as she was merely a female Bandhu. When succession opened in 1944 on Kaveriammas death, the three plaintiffs, who were alive, became the heirs. They take precedence as male Bandhus over their mother, who was merely a female Bandhu. Since the suit was filed beyond the period of 12 years after the death of the widow, Kaveriamma, It was barred by time.

( 7 ) THE lower court found that items 2 to 5 of A Schedule belonged to the first defendant and consequently the alleged alienations made by the second defendant in favour of defendants 3 to 6 are binding on the Plaintiffs. There were only five items in the A schedule and, therefore, in so far as that schedule is concerned, the further dispute survived only in regard to item I. The court held that the plaintiffs were the nearest male reversioners to the estate of Subbaraya, but since they did not file the suit within 12 years from the date of opening of the succession, which occurred on the date of the death of Kaveriamma, the plaintiff s claim was barred by limitation. So, the trial court dismissed the suit. It is not necessary to go into the other findings recorded by the trial court for the purpose of this letters patent appeal. Our learned brother chinnappa Reddy, J. , affirmed this view of the trial Court and hence this letters patent appeal by the plaintiffs.

( 8 ) LEARNED Advocate General do