JUDGMENT This is a plaintiffs' second appeal. Respondents were defendants in O.S. No. 75 of 1996 on the file of Munsiff, Srinivasapur. The plaintiffs' filed the suit for partition and separate possession claiming 1/2 share in the suit properties and for mesne profits. According to the plaint averments, one Bathenna had three sens by name; Venkataramanna, Muniyappa and Bathenna Venkataramanna had a son by name Siddappa, who was the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of the 2nd plaintiff Defendants are the children of 3rd son Bathenna. The 2nd son Muniyappa died issueless. After the death of Muniyappa, the present suit is filed by the grandson and daughter-in-law of Venkataramanna contending that they ate entitled for half share in the properties of deceased Muniyappa. 2. The suit was contested by the defendants contending that the plaintiffs' being the legal heirs of predeceased brother's son of Muniyappa are not entitled to claim any share. According to them, the 1st defendant being brother of deceased Muniyappa has succeeded to the estate of deceased. The Trial Court after considering the case pleaded by the parties decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for half share in all the suit properties. Thereafter, the defendants filed an appeal in R.A. No. 56 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolar. The lower Appellate Court considering the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, allowed the appeal of the respondents by holding that the plaintiffs being the grandson and daughter-in-law of Venkataramanna are not entitled to a share in the property of Muniyappa and that the 1st defendant alone has succeeded to the suit properties being the brother of Muniyappa. 3. Being aggrieved by the divergent findings of the Courts below, the present appeal is filed. 4. Since the appellants herein are questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, as the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs relying upon Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, it is not necessary to reproduce the pleadings and evidence of the parties, as this appeal can be disposed of, only on the short question as to whether the appellants are entitled for half share in the suit property, in view of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 5. 5. It is admitted by both the parties that pursuant to a partition drawn amongst three sons of Bathenna, they were enjoying their respective shares. It is also not in dispute that Muniyappa died issueless. It is also not in dispute that the suit properties were allotted to the share of Muniyappa. 6. The only point to be considered is whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/2 share in the properties of Muniyappa. The lower Appellate Court having come to the conclusion that the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff-Siddappa died prior to the death of Muniyappa they are not entitled to a share in the suit properties. Therefore, what is required to be considered is that in view of Entry at IV in the Schedule to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, whether Siddappa was alive on the date of death of Muniyappa. If Siddappa was not alive on the date of death of Muniyappa, whether the appellants-plaintiffs are entitled to equal share. 7. The 1st plaintiff, Seethamma has been examined as P.W. 1. In her examination chief, she admits that her father-in-law Venkataramanna and Muniyappa died in the same year. She further admits in her cross-examination that her husband-Siddappa died prior to the death of her father-in-law. If Siddappa died prior to the death of Venkataramanna and if Venkataramanna and Muniyappa died in the same year, it goes without saying that Siddappa predeceased Muniyappa and if Siddappa predeceased Muniyappa, the appellants being the legal heirs of Siddappa are not entitled to claim share in the properties of Muniyappa, since they fall under Entry IV of the Class II heirs of the schedule given to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As per Schedule to Section 8, the following are the Class II heirs: “I. Father. II. (1) Son's daughter's son; (2) son's daughter's daughter; (3) brother; (4) sister. III. (1) Daughter's son's son; (2) daughter's son's daughter; (3) daughter's daughter's son; (4) daughter's daughter's daughter. IV. (1) Brother's son; (2) sister's son; (3) brother's daughter; (4) sister's daughter. V. Father's father; father's mother. VI. Father's widow; brothers widow. VII. Father's brother; father's sister. VIII. Mother's father; mother's mother. IX. Mother's brother; mother's sister". III. (1) Daughter's son's son; (2) daughter's son's daughter; (3) daughter's daughter's son; (4) daughter's daughter's daughter. IV. (1) Brother's son; (2) sister's son; (3) brother's daughter; (4) sister's daughter. V. Father's father; father's mother. VI. Father's widow; brothers widow. VII. Father's brother; father's sister. VIII. Mother's father; mother's mother. IX. Mother's brother; mother's sister". From the above schedule, it is clear that plaintiffs being the widow and son of deceased Siddappa, Siddappa being the predeceased brother of Muniyappa, they are not entitled to claim share in the properties of deceased Muniyappa when 1st defendant Bathenna is alive. Bathenna being the brother of Muniyappa is entitled to succeed to the properties of Muniyappa as he falls under Entry II of Class II of the Schedule to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. 2nd plaintiff Venkataramanappa being the brother's son of Muniyappa falls under Entry IV to Class II of the Schedule. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to succeed to the properties of deceased Muniyappa when brother of Muniyappa is alive. If brother of Muniyappa was not alive on the date of death of Muniyappa, then only plaintiffs can claim the properties of Muniyappa as successors. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. According to this Court, Trial Court without considering the legal position had decreed the suit. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court is confirmed considering the relationship between the parties. Parties to bear their costs.