CHAGLA, C.J. :- A very interesting question, arises of Hindu law in this appeal which has been very ably argued by Mr. K.K. Desai on behalf of the appellants. One Bhimabai died on February 20, 1949, having made a will prior thereto on February 18, 1949. The Administrator General applied to the Court for letters of administration with the will annexed and the appellants filed: and caveat, and the question arose as to whether the appellants were entitled to maintain that caveat. The learned Judge held that they were not so entitled and dismissed the caveat. It is from that decision that this appeal is preferred.

2. Now, one Arjun had a son by the name of Ramcliandra and a daughter by the name of Kashibai. Ramchandra had a son by the name of Ganpatrao and the caveators are the sons of Ganpatrao. Kashibai had a daughter Bhimabai who was born to her not in wedlock but through an illicit connection with one Hiroo, and in order to maintain the caveat the appellants have to satisfy us that they are the heirs of Bhimabai. Mr. Desai accepts the test laid down by the learned Judge below that the appellants could only be the heirs of Bhimabai provided Bhimabai could have been the heir