JUDGMENT
1. The question argued in support of this appeal is that the appellant who is a junior adoptive maternal uncle of the deceased adopted son of the 1st defendant is a preferential reversionary heir to his senior brother by reason of his being the natural father of the deceased adopted son, the estate in question being admittedly an impartible estate governed by the law of primogeniture. In illustration of this contention it was maintained that if the property had been partible, the appellant would be entitled to the whole of it, to the exclusion of his brothers. We consider the contention to be untenable. We cannot accede to the argument that in determining the degree of propinquity to the deceased adopted son in his adoptive family in which the question of reversionary succession arises, the appellant should be regarded as nearer of kin, because of his relationship as natural father-a relationship which for purposes of inheritance is entirely immaterial. It has been definitely decided in Srinivasa Aiyyangar v. Kuppen Aiyyangar 1 M.H.C.R. 180, that for mutual” rights of succession an adopted son is completely severed from his natural family. None of the texts quoted to us is in conflict with that ruling.
2. It is unnecessary to consider or decide whether the natural relationship would be efficacious to intercept an escheat to the crown.
3. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with separate costs for each set of respondents except in regard to the vakil’s fee of which each will get a moiety.
