1. The first point taken is that, on the date of suit, the plaintiff had no title to the property, as two of the daughters of the original owner, Thimmayya, were alive and they were entitled to the property in spite of the relinquishment of their rights in favour of Nagamma. It is contended that their relinquishment did not involve the loss of their right to take by survivorship to Nagamma. This would really depend upon the nature and extent of the relinquishment. If they expressly relinquished their right to take the estate after the death of Nagamma, they could not, in our opinion take it subsequently on the ground of survivorship, but it will pass to the heirs of Thinomayya as if all the daughters were dead, that is in this case to the daughters sons, the plaintiff and Hanumanthu.

2. Here, however, there is no deed of relinquishment and it is not possible on the facts to say positively whether the relinquishment involved the loss of right to enjoy the property on Nagammas death.

3. We would, therefore, assume that, at the date of suit, the plaintiffs title is not established. In this connection reliance was placed by the appellant on the case in Muthiyalu Chengappa v. Bura