1. It is found by the Subordinate Judge that Sengoda Goundan predeceased his father. The question for decision is, therefore, whether plaintiff is entitled to succeed to her grandfather as a bandhu. It was held by this Court in Kutti Ammal v. Radakristna Aiyan 8 M.H.C.R. 88 that a sister is a bandhu. The course of decisions from the date of that decision proceeds on the principle that consanguinity may be recognized as the basis of title to succession in the absence of preferential male heirs. According to the definition of the term sapinda as given in the Achara Kanda of the Mitakshara, there is sapinda relationship when there exists a 'connection with one body either immediately or by descent.'
2. On this view, a son's daughter is as much a bandhu as is a sister, and thus entitled to succeed as heir of her paternal grandfather in the absence of preferential male heirs. Our attention has been drawn to the observations of Mr. Mayne in paragraph 495 (4th edition) of his work on Hindu law. But they have been considered and dissented from by the learned Judges who decided the case of Lakshmanammal v. Tiruvengada I.L.R. 5 Mad. 241.
3. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.