JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff who is appellant here to establish his right to the property left by one Behari. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif whose decision was affirmed in appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff comes here in Second Appeal. It is clear that both the plaintiff and the defendant are Bandhus of the deceased Behari. The plaintiff is the grandson of Behari's maternal grandfather. The defendant is the great-grandson of Behari's paternal grandfather, being the son of Musammat Bindho, Behari's first cousin, on the father's side. The Courts below have held that under the Hindu law the defendant has a preferential claim to succeed to Behari's property as being a Bandhu ex parte paterna. As pointed out by Mr. Mayne the enumeration of Bandhus in the Mitakshara is merely illustrative and not exhaustive. According to the table given on page 763 of Mayne's Hindu Law, 6th edition, the defendant is a nearer Bandhu than the plaintiff. The same view is taken by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya in his commentaries on Hindu law (See the table given on page 460 of second edition.) The authority of Raj Kumar Sarbhadikary in his Principles of Hindu Law of Inheritance (Tagore Law Lectures, 1880) is also against the appellant. On behalf of the appellant reliance is placed upon Golap Chander Sircar's Hindu Law page 202. I agree with the view set forth in paragraph 579 of Mayne's Hindu Law. This is the only point in appeal. I may add that the genealogy set up by the plaintiff was not admitted by the defendant, and had I differed from the view taken of the question of law by the lower Courts, it would have been necessary to refer an issue of fact for trial by the lower Court. The appeal is dismissed with costs including fees on the higher scale.