Krishnan, J.

1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against the decree of the District Judge of South Arcot in Original Suit No. 13 of 1916 on his file. The suit was Drought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of the impartible estate known as Jadaya Goundar Jaghir, one of the bill Jaghirs on the Kalayan hills in South Arcot, and also the moveable and immoveable properties and outstandings described, in Schedules B, C and D. The Jaghir is one of the estates included in the Schedule of the Madras Impartible Estates Act, II of 1904, and is thus made inalienable by the holder beyond his lifetime. The last bolder of the Jaghir was one Naranappa Jadaya Goundar; the Jaghirdars ire given the honorific title of Jadaya Goundars. He died in 1914 leaving a Will, which is not now disputed, by which he bequeathed all his properties to the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff is his mother and the heir-at-law to his separate properties, as he left no issue. The two plaintiffs sue jointly, the second plaintiff as the beneficiary under the Will and first plaintiff as the heir-at-law in case the Will is found to be invalid. Clearly, the Will, is of no effect by reason of Madras Act II of 1904 to pass the Jaghir to the second plaintiff The District Judge gave a decree for the Jaghir to the first plaintiff as the heir-at-law and to the second plaintiff for the properties in the other schedules which he found to be self-acquisitions of Naranappa. Appeal No. 75 of 1921 is against that decree.

2. The first defendant himself had brought a suit, Original Suit No. 50 of 1916, against the first plaintiff and others to recover a house in Akkarapalayam in their possession which he claimed to be a part of the Jaghir which, according to him, passed to him on the death of the last holder by the right of survivorship taken with the rule of lineal primogeniture. The District Judge held that the house was not part of the Jaghir, and having already held in the connected suit Original Suit No. 13, of 1916, which was tried with this suit that he was not entitled to the Jaghir itself dismissed his suit. Appeal No. 76 of 1921 is against that decree.

3. The main question for decision is, who is entitled to succeed to the Jaghir on the death of the last holder That would depend upon whether the Jaghir in his hands was the joint family property of himself and the defendant and others or his separate or self-acquired property. It is a well-settled proposition of law that the succession to an impartible estate is governed by the rule of survivorship if it is joint family property and by the rule of inheritance to separate property if it is Separate property. That was so laid down in Kaiama Natchiar v. Rajah of Shivagunga 9 M.I.A. 539 : 2 W.R.P.C. 31 : 1 Suth P.C.J. 520 : 2 Sar P.C.J 25 19 E.R. 843 and has since been affirmed in several cases, the last one being the case in Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Tej Bali Singh 60 Ind. Cas. : 534 : 43 228 : 19 A.L.J. 317 : 33 C.L.J. 388 : 40 M.L.J. 387 (1921) M.W.N. 300 : 25 C.W.N. 564 : 2 P.L.T. 257 : 23 Bom. L.R. 654 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 35 : 29 M.L.T. 358 (P.C.). In the present case there is no difficulty in choosing a single individual out of a class for the Jaghirship, for it is conceded that if the rule of survivorship applies, the 1st defendant is entitled as the senior member of the senior line, whereas if the rule as to succession to the separate estate applies the 1st plaintiff, the mother, is entitled.

4. We have thus to address ourselves to the question whether on the evidence in this case the District Judge was light in holding that the Jaghir was the separate property of Naranappa, the last holder. A genealogical table showing the relationship between the first defendant and Naranappa and others is attached to the judgment of the lower Court and has been accepted as correct by both parties. That shows that one Lakshmanappa was the twenty-ninth Jaghirdar. We know that Lakshmanappa was succeeded in 1822 not by his