1. The property in suit came into the possession of Venkataramana Iyer by the Will of his maternal grandfather. It never assumed the character of ancestral property if we understand that expression in the technical sense of property in which a son on birth becomes an equal owner with his father. It follows that Venkataramana Iyers widow had, when he died issueless, a preferential right of inheritance over his father.

2. The cases of Muthayan Chetti v. Sivargiri Zamindar [1881] 3 Mad. 370. Sivaganga Zamindar v. Lakshmana [1886] 9 Mad. 188 and Muthuvadugurinatha Tevar v. Periasami [1893] 16 Mad. 11 cited by appellants vakil are all cases of impartible estates as to which there are rights of primogeniture. It would be unsafe to take any statements as to the law out of the judgments in those eases and apply them to different circumstances. In Venkayamma Garu v. Venkata Ramanayamma Bahadur Garu [1902] 25 Mad. 678 the property devolved upon maternal grandsons not by Will but by the ordinary law of inheritance. The lower Courts are right upon the point of law. The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.