William Phillips, Kt., Officiating C.J.

1. The plaintiffs have brought this suit to recover a share in the family property of themselves and the defendants. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the illegitimate sons of the deceased brother of the 3rd defendant; defendants 1 and 2 are sons of the deceased and the 4th defendant is the son of the 3rd defendant. The learned trial Judge has held that, sitting as a single Judge, he is bound by the decision in Gopalasami Chetti v. Arunachellam Chetty (1903) ILR 27 M 32 and has held that the illegitimate sons, plaintiffs 2 and 3, are not entitled to any share in the family property of their deceased father as there are collaterals in existence. This point was expressly determined in Gopalasami Chetti v. Arunachellam. Chetty (1890) LR 17 IA 128 : ILR 18 C 151 (PC), but it is now sought to be argued that that decision is wrong. Reliance is placed chiefly on a decision of the Privy Council reported in Jogendro Bhupati Hurrochundra Mahapatra v. Nityanand Man Sing (1890) LR 17 IA 128 : ILR 18 C 151 (PC). This case in Jogendro Bhupati Hurrochundra Mahapatra v. Nityanand Man Sing (1890) LR 17 IA 128 : ILR 18 C 151 (PC) was considered in Ramalinga Muppan