1. The facts, so far as they need be stated for the purpose of this appeal, are as follows. The Plaintiff is the son of the first Defendant. The second and third Defendants are the Plaintiffs brothers. Defendants Nos. 4 to 10 are the first Defendants brothers and their sons. The parties are governed by the Mitakshara Law of inheritance and the Plaintiff is undivided from his father, the first Defendant. The Plaintiff sued for partition. The property in respect of which he sued for a share was property which came to the first Defendant from the father of Kamakshi, the first Defendants adoptive mother. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the Plaintiff could not claim a share in property which came to his father from the maternal side. The District Judge set aside the District Munsifs order and remanded the suit, relying on the recent decision of the Privy Council in the Jaggainpett case (Venkayyamma Garu v. Venkataramanayyamma Bahadur Garu I.L.R. 25 Mad. 678 at p. 687). The appeal is against this order. We think that the order of the District Judge is right. The Privy Council case relied on does not directly decide the point in issue, but that case has r