M.M. Ismail, J.
1. Admittedly the suit properties originally belonged to one Kaliammal, wife of Sengoda Goundar and that Kaliammal died issueless. According to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on the death of Kaliammal without leaving any issue, it is her husband's heirs who inherit the properties. Her husband Sengoda Goundar had a brother by name Karuppanna Goundar and a sister by name Sembayeeammal. The plaintiff in the suit is the surviving daughter of Sembayeeammal, while the defendant in the suit is the purchaser from two daughters of Karuppanna Goundar, namely Sembayeeammal and Pavayeeammal. When the plaintiff instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/3 share of the suit properties the defendant put forward two contentions. One was that Sembayee and Pavayee, the vendors of the defendant being brother's-daughters of Sengoda Goundar, excluded the plaintiff who was a sister's daughter of Sengoda Goundar. The second contention was that in any event the plaintiff was not entitled to 1/3 share because another daughter of Karuppanna Goundar who was also entitled to have a share had released her rights in favour of the defendant and therefore the plaintiff would be entitled only to 1/4th share in Kaliammal's properties and not 1/3 share. Both these contentions were negatived by the Courts below and the suit for partition of the respondent was decreed. Hence the present second Appeal by the defendant in the suit.
2. It is easier to dispose of the second contention namely that Karuppanna Goundar had a third daughter and that third daughter had released her interest in favour of the appellant herein. Except producing the alleged release deed marked as Exhibit B-3, no evidence was produced to show that the executant of that document was a daughter of Karuppanna Goundar and was entitled to have a share in the property of Kaliammal. It is in view of this, this case of the appellant was rejected by the Courts below, in my opinion rightly.
3. As for as the first contention is concerned, the argument is based upon the meaning to be attributed to the word 'entry' occurring in Section 11 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. Class II to the Schedule to the Act enumerates-the groups of heirs as follows:
II. (1) Son's daughter's son
(2) Sons' daughter's daughter
III. (1) Daughter's son's son
(2) Daughter's son's daughter
(3) Daughter's daughter's son
(4) Daughter's daughter.
IV. (1) Brother's son
(2) Sister's son
(3) Brother's daughter
(4) Sister's daughter
V. Father's father; father's mother
VI. Father's widow; brother's widow.
VII. Father's brother; father's sister.
VIII. Mother's father; mother's mother.
IX. Mother's brother; mother's sister.
The brother's daughters and sister's daughter of Sengoda Goundar will obviously fall within the group shown by the Roman numeral IV. The argument is, the word 'entry' occurring in Section 11 does not refer to the group of persons shown by the Roman numeral but it refers to only the person shown against the Arabic numerals. In this context, emphasis is also laid on the fact that, Arabic numerals have been used against the persons in the groups represented by Roman numerals II, III and IV, while no such Arabic numerals have been used in respect of persons falling in the groups represented by Roman numerals, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX, even though each one of the groups contains more than one person. This argument has been considered by this Court and has been rejected, this Court taking the view that the 'entry' that is referred to in Section 11 denotes only the group of persons represented by the Roman numerals and. not by the Arabic numerals. That is a decision of a Bench of this Court in Arunachalathammal v. Ramachandra Pillai : AIR1963Mad255 . This decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ramachandra Pillai v. Arunachalathammal and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1967, by judgment dated 20th February, 1970. The same view had already been taken by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Satya Charan v. Urmilla : 2SCR294 . Consequently, this question has been concluded against the appellant by the highest Court in the land and therefore conclusion of the Courts below in this behalf rejecting the case of the appellant is correct. Under these circumstances, the second appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. No leave.