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