The third respondent is the first plaintiff and one Muniyappa is the second plaintiff. Respondents 1 and 2 are defendants 1 and 2 before the Trial Court. Petitioners claim that they are the surviving legal representatives of deceased second plaintiff. In this judgment for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court.

2. The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 5950 of 1990 for declaration of title, for a direction to transfer the katha of Schedule property to their names and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit second plaintiff-C.S. Muniyappa died on 11-2-2002. The petitioners on coming to know about the pendency of O.S. No. 5950 of 1990 filed LA. Nos. II, III and IV of 2005 for condonation of delay, to set aside the abatement and to bring them on record as the surviving legal representatives of deceased second plaintiff-C.S. Muniyappa. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications, the petitioners contend that the deceased C.S. Muniyappa died without leaving any relations specified in Class I of the Schedule to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short the Act'). The petitioners further contend that the deceased C.S. Muniyappa died leaving behind two brothers by name Tammaiah and Pillaiah who are also dead. Petitioners are the children of deceased Tammaiah and Pillaiah and as such they contend that they are the surviving relations of deceased C.S. Muniyappa as specified in Class II of the Schedule to Section 8 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners want to come on record as the surviving legal representatives of deceased C.S. Muniyappa. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order dismissing all the three applications filed by petitioners mainly on the ground that they have failed to prove and establish that Thammaiah and Pillaiah are dead and that the petitioners have not stepped into the witness-box to prove that they are the surviving legal represent4tives of deceased C.S. Muniyappa. Petitioners being aggrieved by this order of the Trial Court are before this Court in this writ petition.

3. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as under:

"Section 8. General rules of succession in the case of males.-The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this chapter.-

(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule;

(b) secondly, if there is no heir of Class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule;

(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and

(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased".

4. A reading of Section 8 of the Act specifies that if a male Hindu dies intestate then the property left by him shall firstly devolve on the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule, secondly on Class II and thirdly upon the agnates of the deceased and lastly on the cognates of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the deceased C.S. Muniyappa died intestate and has not left behind the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule to the Act. The petitioners contend that they are relatives of deceased C.S. Muniyappa as specified Class II.

5. In Class II of Schedule to Section 8 of the Act there are 9 entries.

They are:

"I. Father.

II (1) Son's daughter's son; (2) son's daughter's daughter; (3) brother; (4) sister.

III. (1) Daughter's son; (2) daughter's son's daughter; (3) daughter's daughter's son; (4) daughter's daughter's daughter.

IV. (1) Brother's son; (2) sister's son; (3) brother's daughter; (4) sister's daughter. .

V. Father's father; father's mother.

VI. Father's widow; brother's widow.

VII. Father's brother; father's sister.

VIII. Mother's father; mother's mother.

IX. Mother's brother; mother's sister".

Section 9 of the Act specifies that order of succession. It is specified that the relation in first entry in Class IT shall be preferred to those in