Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.—This Second Appeal arises out of O.S. No.412/58 on the file of the Munsiff, Srirangapatna, seeking declaration of title to and possession of the plaint schedule properties. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal to the Civil Judge, Mysore, the suit has been decreed. The defendants have preferred this second Appeal.

(2) It is necessary to set out the genealogical tree denoting the relationship of parties to understand the plaintiffs' claim. Sidde Gowda and Kempe-gowda were the divided sons of Kale-Gowda. Sidde-Gowda had a son Manche Gowda alias Kotre Gowda. The Second defendant is he grandson of the aforesaid Manche Gowda by his son Vogi. The first defendant Kempiah is the son of the aforesaid Manchegowda.

(3) Kempegowda had two sons Dodda Huchamari and Chikka Huchamari. Dodda Huchamari's wife is Giri and his son is one Manchiga. This Manchiga is the last male holder. Chikka Huchamari had a son Thimmiah whose widow is the first plaintiff Pinnamma. The second plaintiff is the daughter of the aforesaid Pinnamma. The Geological tree is also annexed below.

GENEALOGICAL TREE

KALEGOWDA (d)

___________________________|_____________________________

| |

Siddegowda(d), Kempegowda(d)

Manchegowda(d) |

________|________ |

| | |

Vogi(d), Kempiah |

| (Deft No.1.) |

Vogi Gowda (Deft.2) ____________________|

_____________|____________

| |

Doddahuchamari alias Chikkahuchamari (d)

Manchiga (d) Girigi (d) |

(12-2-58) Thimmiah (d), Girigamma (a)

| Pinnamma

Manchiga (d)(1918) (Ptff. No. 1).

Girigi (re-married &) |

left the family) Thimmamma (a),

Puttamma (a) Sarojamma (Plff.2).

Machiga referred to as the last male holder died in 1918. After his death his mother Girgi succeeded to his estate as his mother holding a widow's estate. Girgi died on 12th February 1958. The widow's estate then ended and the question now is who succeeds as the reversioner, whether it is the plaintiffs or the defendants.

(4) I may also mention that the limited owner Girgi had executed a settlement deed in favour of defendant 2 on 12-5-1919 and as she was not in possession on 17-6-1956 when the Hindu Succession Act came into force, the widow Girgi did not have the benefit of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and her limited estate did not get enlarged. The plaintiffs claiming to be the reversioners to the estate of Manchiga the last male holder have filed this suit. This claim is resisted by Defendants 1 and 2 mainly on the ground that they are the reversioners who are entitled to the estate. The defendants' contention is that succession to the deceased last male holder Manchiga is regulated by the provisions of the Hindu Law in force on the date of the actual death of the last male holder and not by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which came into force on 17-6-1956. It is not disputed that on the death of the widow Girgi, if the succession is traced to the last male holder under S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as on 12-2-1958 the plaintiffs would be the reversioners entitled to succeed. Otherwise if succession is traced according to the Hindu Law as it was in force on the date of death of the last male holder, the defendants would be the nearer reversioners than the plaintiffs. The trial Court took the view that the succession to the estate of Manchiga was governed by the law in force on the date of death of the last male holder i.e. 1918 and not according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Civil Judge, Mysore took a contrary view and decreed the plaintiffs' suit on the ground that Succession to the estate of the last male holder should be traced according to the provisions of S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendants preferred the above Second Appeal against the decision of the Civil Judge.

(5) When this Second Appeal came up for hearing before his Lordship Judge K.S. Hegde on 2nd of April, 1963, the appellants-defendants relied on a Bench decision of this High