John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.
1. The only question in this case is whether the plaintiffs were reversioners. If they were reversioners, they were entitled to maintain the suit. The last owner of the property was one Sheo Charan. He died leaving a widow, who made a deed of gift in favour of Nand Kishore, one of the appellants here, and one of the defendants to the suit. The plaintiffs are the sons of the son of a daughter of Sheo Charan. Their father and his mother died before suit. This case is governed by the decision in Krishnayya v. Pichamma I.L.R. 11 Mad. 287, and is within the principle of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Babu Lal v. Nanku Ram I.L.R. 22 Cal. 339. We hold that these plaintiffs were banahus, being bhmna gotra sapindas of Sheo Charan, and, there being no one nearer, they were reversioners and entitled to maintain the suit.
2. We dismiss the appeal with costs.