Curgenven, J.

1. The learned Subordinate Judge has decided this case against the plaintiff upon a preliminary point and it is unfortunate that the argument ,upon this point proceeded ex-parte, because the consequence was that a clear current of decisions contrary to the position taken up by the Lower Court was not brought to its notice. This suit was brought by the illegitimate son of a Sudra against the legitimate sons and other descendants for partition of the family property, and the preliminary question which arose was whether in the circumstances of the case, there being no collaterals involved, such a suit would lie. The Lower Court has referred only to two cases and there is an essential distinction between those cases and the present case, namely, that they both related to families in which collaterals existed. Gopalasami Chetti v. Arunachelam Chetti I.L.R. (1903) Mad. 32 accordingly is no authority for the proposition which the preliminary issue raises in this case, nor is Natarajan v. Muthiah AIR1926Mad261 which followed that case and which was taken to the Privy Council as Vellaiyappa Chetty v. Natarajan I.L.R. 55 Mad. 1 : 61 M.L.J. 522 . But if the learned Subord