JUDGMENT : Stanley, J. The question raised in this appeal appears to us to be concluded by a ruling of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Deo Kishan v. Budh Prakash, [1883] I.L.R., 5 All, 509. In that case it was held that a person is disqualified under the Hindu Law from succeeding to property if he be insane when the succession opens, whether his insanity is curable or incurable, but when property has once vested by succession in a person, his subsequent insanity will not be a ground for its resumption. In the case before us it is admitted that the plaintiff-appellant was not insane at the time when he became entitled by birth-right to a share in the property which is” the subject matter of this suit. According to the ruling to which we have referred the fact that insanity supervened would not divest the interest which the plaintiff had so acquired by birth-right. The case of Deo Kishan v. Budh Prakash, [1883] I.L.R., 5 All, 509 does not appear to have been brought to the notice of either of the Judges of the Courts below(?). If it had been, their decision would probably have been different. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of both the lower Courts and remand the suit to the Court of first instance, through the learned district Judge, with directions that it be replaced in the file of pending suits and be disposed of according to law. This remand is ordered under the provisions of section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the suit was determined upon a preliminary point. Costs here and hitherto will abide’ the event.