Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The question for decision in this second appeal lies in a narrow compass. One K. Narayanayya was the last male owner of the property involved in the suit out of which this appeal arises. He died leaving him surviving his widow Nagamma and a daughter Lakshmi. Nagamma was murdered on 27--9--1928 by her daughter Lakshmi and her son-in-law. Defendants 1 to 5 are the sons of Lakshmi and defendants 6 to 13 are the lessees under Nagamma in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs are the sons of K. Ramakrishnayya, the deceased divided brother of K. Narayanayya. The question in controversy is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to the suit property in preference to defendants 1 to 5. The case for the plaintiffs is that as the defendants are the sons of the murderess Lakshmi, they are disentitled to succeed to the suit property and that they as next heirs are entitled to it. The learned District Munsif gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff, but the learned Subordinate Judge reversed this decision.

2. The question,is which view is tenable. It is now settled by the Privy Council that a murderer cannot succeed as heir of the person whom he murd