Gajendragadkar, J.

1. After dealing with certain points not material to this report his Lord-ship proceeded.] In support of his contention that the pltfs. cannot claim a share by partition in the properties in suit Mr. Abhyankar has raised an interesting point under Hindu law. He con-cedes that Bhaskarrao who is the common ancestor of the parties in the present suit is within four degrees in ascent from the pltfs. The pedigree shows that Bhaskarraos son was Narayanrao, Narayanraos son was Vinayakrao, the pltfs. are Vinayakraos sons. Mr. Abhyankar, however, points out that the defts. against whom the present claim has been made are beyond four degrees in descent from Bhaskarrao. That again is true; because according to the same pedigree Bhaskar-raos eldest son was Ramchandrarao, Ramchan-draraos son was Ballalrao, Ballalraos eldest son was Ganpatrao, the two defts. for whom Mr. Abyankar appears are the sons of Ganpatrao. Mr. Abhyankars contention is that it is a rule of Hindu law that a partition cannot be demanded by any person who is more than four degrees re-moved from the last owner. In this case accord-ding to Mr. Abhyankar the pltfs. are clearly removed by more than