16. I have been directed to return a finding on the following issue, viz.: 'Whether at the time of the death of Manikkam-mal, plaintiffs were the nearest heirs to her.'
17. The Vakils who appeared for the appellants and respondents in the High Court stated that they had no instructions and did not propose to call any evidence. I am unable from the records to record any finding on the issue sent down.
18. This second appeal coming on for hearing after receipt of the report from the lower Appellate Court in pursuance of an order of the High Court, dated 27th September 1911, calling for a finding the Court (the Chief Justice and Ayling, J.) made the following
19. The Vakils on both sides now say their clients are in a position to adduce evidence. The case will go back to the District Court for a finding on the issue framed on the 27th September 1911 in the above second appeal.
20. The finding will be submitted within one month after the re-opening of the District Court and the parties will be at liberty to file memorandum of objections to the said finding within seven days after notice of return of the same shall have been posted up in this Court.
21. In compliance with the above order, the District Judge of North Arcot submitted the following
22. I have been directed to return a finding on the following issue: Whether at the time of the death of Manikkammal, plaintiffs were the nearest heirs to her? '
23. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the first defendant (appellant in the High Court ). The plaintiffs (respondents in the High Court) did not appear in person and were not represented by a Vakil. It appears from the evidence of the witnesses examined before me that one Yesotha Nainar, the father-in-law of first defendant and the deceased Manikkammal, had an elder brother named Santhinatha Nainar who is dead. The latter had a son Appasami Nainar who died leaving him surviving two sons, Yesotha Nainar and Santhinatha Nainar, who are alive. The father of Yesotha Nainar (first defendant's father-in-law) had a younger brother named Santhinatha Nainar who is dead. It is stated that he had four sons who are now living. Their names are Appachi Nainar, Ananthanatha Nainar, Lokapala Nainar and Jenathos Nainar. Plaintiffs in the suit are respectively the mother and brother of the deceased Manikkammal. The evidence of the witnesses examined before me appears to be trustworthy and is not contradicted. I would, therefore return a finding' that the plaintiffs were not the nearest heirs to the deceased Manikkammal at the time of her death and her nearest heirs were her husband's dayadis, Yesoda Nainar, Santhinatha Nainar, Appachi Nainar, Ananthanatha Nainar, Lokapala Nainar and Jenathos Nainar. The two former appear to be the nearest heirs being the grandsons of Manikkammal's husband's father's brother.
24. This second appeal coming on for final hearing after the receipt of the finding from the lower Appellate Court, the Court delivered the following
25. The respondents do not appear and there is no memorandum of objections.
26. On the finding which we accept, the decree of the District Judge is set aside and that of the Munsif restored with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court.
27. The Vakil for respondents appeared later and said he did not contest the findings.