JUDGMENT

1. The question arising in this appeal is: How is the estate of the deceased Maung Aung Myin to be partitioned among his heirs, who are:

(1) the plaintiff, the son of Aung myin?s deceased paternal aunt;

(2) and (3) Two children of a deceased maternal nncle;

(4) to (9) six children of a deceased maternal uncle?

2. The learned Judge on the original side has found that the estate must be divided among these nine persons per capita and that each of them is entitled to a one-ninth share.

3. The appellant?s Contention is that the estate should be divided per stripes, and that therefore he is entitled to one-third.

4. Logically he should claim one-half because his connexion with the deceased must be traced throught the latter?s paternal grandparents, while all the other eight heirs trace their connexion through the maternal grandparents.

5. We think that the question is concluded by the Full Bench decision in Maung Po Thu Daw v. Maung Po Than A.I.R. 1924 Rang. 73, in which it was decided that where the only heirs were grandchildren of the propositus the division must be per capita. The cases are, of course not identical, but the principle involved is the same: that when the heirs are all