JUDGMENT : Banerji, J. The suit out of which this second appeal arises relates to the estate of one Tulshi, and the question is whether the plaintiffs are the next reversioners of Tulshi, or whether the defendant has priority over them. The pedigree of the family is as follows:— 2. It is clear from the above pedigree, and is admitted by the parties, that both the plaintiffs and the defendant are samanodakas of the deceased. The question is whether Debi Prasad, defendant, is nearer to the deceased than the plaintiffs. The test as laid down in the Mitakshara (Chaper II, section III, para. 3) is the text of Mann, “to the nearest sapinda, the inheritance next belongs.” That test has been extended to the case of samanodakas, for we find it stated in the same section, para. 4, as follows:— “Nor is the claim in virtue of propinquity restricted to sapindas, but on the contrary it appears from this very text (para. 3) that the rule of propinquity is effectual, without any exception, in the case of samanodakas, as well as other relatives, when they appear to have a claim to the succession.” 3. The descendants of Sukhnain, the great-grandfather of Tulshi, are nearer to him according to the rule of propinquity than the defendant who is a descendant of Kishore, the great-great-grandfather of Tulshi. The table of succession is shown in Mr. Sarvadhikari's Tagore Law Lectures, page 656. According to that table the defendant would come under the twelfth class of heirs, whereas the plaintiffs come under the eighth class. Consequently they are nearer in relationship to Tulshi than the defendant, and are entitled to succeed to Tulshi in preference to the defendant. Their claim ought, therefore, to have been decreed in full. The result is that I allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts.