The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Mitakshara Law and Hindu Law principles to determine the preferential title of reversionary heirs.

1. This is a suit fora declaration that certain alienations made by the 1st defendant, the widow of one Vasudeva. Pandithar, are not binding upon the plaintiff (respondent) as the nearest reversionary heir of Vasudeva. The 3rd defendant (appellant) also claims to be Vasudevas nearest heir. There is no dispute in this Court as to the actual relationship of these parties to Vasudeva. The plaintiff is the son of the maternal uncle of Vasudeva and the 3rd defendant is his sisters adopted sons son.

2. As to the plaintiff, it is not denied that he belongs to the first of the three classes into which bandhus, or cognate kindred entitled to inherit the estate of a deceased man, are divided, vis., his own or atma bandhus, his fathers or pitr bandhus and his mothers or matt bandhus, inasmuch as the plaintiff is a relation of the exact description specifically mentioned by Vijnaneswara as an atma bandhu (Mitakshara Chap. II. Section VI, V, I). As to the 3rd defendant, the learned vakil for the plaintiff urges that he is not Vasudevas atma bandhu. But that he is such a bandhu seems to be necessarily implied by the passage of the Mitakshara cited above. For it lays down that the fathers sisters son--that is a descendant of even the paternal grandfather, is an atma, bandhu. How then can a bandhu, like the 3rd defendant, who is able to trace his relationship to the deceased owner through a nearer ancestor, viz., the father, be held to be other than an atma bandhu? The plaintiffs objection on this point is, consequently, untenable.

3. The substantial question for determination is which of the two atma bandhus (whose rights are admittedly not equal) has the preferential title to the estate of Vasudeva?

4. The plaintiffs claim to such title was sought to be supported by two arguments. The first argument was this: Vasudeva was the atma bandhu of the plaintiff while he was only the pitr bandhu of the 3rd defendant; and the plaintiffs propinquity to Vasudeva should, therefore, be held to be greater than that which subsisted between Vasudeva and 3rd defendant. No decision or authoritative text was, however, cited in support of this argument. Since the question here is as to the title of the plaintiff to come in as the heir of Vasudeva, not as to Vasudevas title to take the estate of the plaintiff had the former been the survivor, the fact so much relied on, on behalf of the plaintiff must be treated as irrelevant to the exact point in issue, and cconsequently, cannot be held to confer on the plaintiff a right to succeed in preference to the 3rd defendant.

5. The second argument on behalf of the plaintiff was that the 3rd. defendant could not and did not confer any religious benefit on Vasudeva, while the plaintiff could and did confer such benefit, and therefore the plaintiff has the better claim.

6. In the argument this was discussed with reference to Vasudevas participation in the offerings of cake and water made periodically by the Plaintiff to two of the paternal ancestors and also with reference to the question whether either party or both were competent to perform the obsequies of Vasudeva in the absence of nearer relations.

7. Now with reference to the 1st of the abovementioned matters, the plaintiffs paternal grandfather and great-grandfather, to whom he has to present cake and water at stated times, being Vasudevas maternal grandfather and great-grandfather respectively, were as such entitled to similar oblations from Vasudeva also, who consequently participated in the offerings made by the plaintiff to those common ancestors. But on the other hand as between the 3rd defendant and Vasudeva, there was no possiblity of similar participation, since none of the persons to whom the 3rd defendant has to make offerings were entitled to like dues from Vasudeva.

8. Next with reference to the 2nd matter viz., eligibility to perform the obsequies of Vasudeva, on behalf of the plaintiff, no text expressly mentioning the son of the maternal uncle of a