Odgers, J.

1. In this second appeal it is contended that the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge has not dealt in the right way with the first issue which was:

Is the plaintiff a legitimate son of the deceased Veerabhadra Pillai?"

2. Under ordinary circumstances, one would say that the findings of both the learned District Munsif and of the Subordinate Judge were questions of fact on the evidence. But Mr. Sesha Iyengar for the appellant has raised a point with regard to the decision of this first issue in that he says that what the Subordinate Judge has done is really to throw the onus of proving legitimacy on his client instead of starting with the presumption of legitimacy in his favour.

3. The learned District Munsif found the legitimacy of the plaintiff by reason of certain evidence, Exhibit E series, which it is not contended can be legitimately used; so that the ground on which the District Munsif decided has now definitely gone.

4. The Subordinate Judge has come to a contrary decision on a consideration partly of the evidence on this issue and partly on the evidence of the second point in the case as to the plaintiffs right to a portion of a certain house to which he would be e