Ramesam, J.

1. The facts of the case are simple. One Pandi Aiyangar died in 1890 leaving his widow Pichai Ammal and daughter Kothai Animal. Kothai Ammal was married to one Doraiswami Aiyangar. She pre-deceased her mother in 1900 leaving a male child who died shortly after. Pichai Ammal died in 1923. Meanwhile, on the 26th May, 1910, Doraiswami Aiyangar adopted the 2nd defendant Alwar Aiyangar. The 2nd defendant claims to succeed to the property of Pandi Aiyangar on the death of Pichai Ammal on the ground of his being related as daughters son to Pandi Aiyangar by reason of his adoption. The plaintiffs are persons who would be reversioners to the estate of Pandi Aiyangar if the 2nd defendant cannot claim by reason of his adoption. Both the lower Courts found in favour of the adoption and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. When the case came on before our learned brother Sundaram Chetty, J., he referred the case to a Bench of two Judges noting that the decision in Sundaramma v. Venkatasubba Ayyar I.L.R.(1926) Mad. 941 : 51 M.L.J. 545 is in favour of the respondent but the view of Devadoss, J., in Venkatasubba Aiyar v. Sundaramma (1924) 48 M.L.J. 126 which was reversed in that decis