Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. I agree with the lower Court, that the plaintiffs suit ought to fail, but I am not prepared to agree with its reasoning. There is the finding here, which is not attacked, that the plaintiff is the step-sisters son of Akka Naicker, the last maleholder. His widows are still alive and in view of the recent Full Bench decision in Appeal No. 443 of 1930, there can be no doubt that the case is governed by the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amend-ment) Act, 1929; but it is unnecessary to decide whether a step-sisters son is among the heirs intended to be benefited under Section 2 of that Act. I proceed upon the assumption that while a sisters son cornea within that section, a step-sisters son does not; but how does that make any difference here? Under the Hindu law, as unaffected by and independent of the Act mentioned above, a step-sisters son, though a remote heir, is in the line of succession: Subbaraya v. Kylasa (1892) 15 Mad 300 and Mullas Hindu Law, Edn. 8, p. 46. Granting then that the plaintiff is not the nearest but remote reversioner, the question arises, does the suit lie or not? Defendant 5 is the sister of the last maleholder and defendants 3 and 4 a