JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage by one Chatru in 1859. The plaintiff claims as heir to Chatru. The relationship between him and Chatru is as follows:— Chatru's paternal uncle was Hem Karan whose son was Mohan. The plaintiff, Binaik Prasad, is the son of Mohan's daughter. The plaintiff is thus Chatru's paternal uncle's son's daughter's son. The only question is whether he is a bandhu of the deceased and as such, entitled to succeed to him It has been held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Girdhari Lal v. The Bengal Government, [1868] 21 M.I.A. 448, that the list of bandhus given in the Mitakshara is not exhaustive, so that if any one comes within the definition of bandhu, he is entitled to succeed although not mentioned in the list, The paternal uncle's son's daughter's son is within six degrees, the common ancestor of him and the deceased not being further removed from them than six degrees. 2. He is therefore a sapinda as the term is understood in the Mitakshara. As he belongs to a different gotra from the deceased, he is his bandhu. This is the view of Messrs. West and Buhler (See Hindu Law, p. 489, and Mayne's Hindu Law, p. 671, 6th edition). In the Chart given by Mr. Sarvadhicary in his Tagore Law Lectures, p. 713, the son of the parternal uncle's son's daughter is enumerated among bandhus, The plaintiff in this case is, therefore, the bandhu of the deceased Chatru. It was not alleged on behalf of the defendants-appellants that there was any other relative of Chatru in existence nearer to him than the plaintiff, and the court below has found that there is none. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to maintain the suit. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.