1. The learned Judge has declined to accept the finding of the lower Appellate Court as to plaintiff's title and possession on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title. In this we think he was wrong and that his decision is apparently due to an idea that the plaintiff was bound to prove that he was the direct lineal descendant of the first holder Ramachari in accordance with the principle of devolution according to Hindu Law. No such allegation was set up in the plaint and the property in dispute in this case is the property attached to a maniem office and the devolution of such property very frequently does not follow the rules laid down by the Hindu 1 aw. The appointment rests with the Government and very frequently the appointment is made on other grounds than direct heirship alone.
2. Apart from this, the plaintiff has been given the inam on enfranchisement and in Ramakrishnayya v. Pitchayya (1925) M.W.N. 480 : A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 726 it was held that such a grant conferred title on the grantee.
3. On these facts it was certainly open to the Subordinate Judge to base his finding as to plaintiff's title and as that finding was justified on the evidence, it is not open to this Court to interfere with it in second appeal.
4. The respondent's Vakil does not seriously dispute the above but supports the decree on the ground that the Subordinate Judge ought not to have re-admitted the appeal after dismissing it for default. The Subordinate Judge has stated that he believed the statement of the appellant that she did not know the date of the hearing of the appeal and in fact the Vakil with whom she had entrusted the case had died and in these circumstances the Subordinate Judge held there were sufficient reasons to excuse her absence. In these circumstances we are not prepared to interfere with that order. This appeal must, therefore, be allowed and the decree of the lower Appellate Court restored with costs both here and in second appeal.