Napier, J.

1. In this suit the plaintiff claims to be entitled as an heir to a moiety of the estate of one Ramsawmy Iyengar, deceased, and to set aside certain alienations as not binding on him. The sole question before this Court in second appeal is, whether the plaintiff is a heritable bandhu and is entitled to the estate of the last male owner.

2. The District Munsif has found, and there is no dispute on this point, that the last male owner is the plaintiffs paternal grandfathers mothers brothers grandson and has held that as such he is not entitled to inherit. The lower Appellate Court accepted that view.

3. It is argued before us that the statement to this effect in Dr. Sarvadhikaris Book on Hindu Law is not correct and that, even if it was thought good law previously, the decision of the Privy Council in Buddha Singh v. Laltu Singh 30 Ind. Cas. 529 : 37 A. 604 : 29 M.L.J. 434 : 2 L.W. 897 : 13 A.L.J. 1007 : 18 M.L.T. 409 : 17 Bom. L.R. 1022 : 20 C.W.N. 1 : 22 C.L.J. 481 : (1915) M.W.N. 772 : 42 I.A. 208 (P.C.) renders this view no longer tenable. I do not propose to consider the principles underlying sapinda relationship on which this plaintiff is excluded. It seems to m