JUDGMENT Daniels, J.
1. The plaintiffs-appellants sued as reversioners of Anandi Singh to redeem certain property mortgaged by Anandi Singh's widow. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that they are not the nearest reversioners, their father who is admittedly alive being nearer in degree. This point seems to have been conceded at the hearing of the appeal in the Court below. In this Court the appellants have urged:
(1) That the appellants should be treated as nearer reversioners than their father.
(2) That if this plea fails, the Court below should have substituted their father as plaintiff in their place.
2. On the first point the appellants rely on the passage from the Mitakshara quoted in Section 513, p. 742, of Mayne's Hindu law, ninth edition, where the sons of the maternal uncle are mentioned as bandhus, but the maternal uncle himself is not mentioned. It has been held in a number of cases, and is now settled law, that the enumeration of bandhus in the Mitakshara is not exhaustive, and in the table of bandhus given on p. 852-A of the same work the maternal uncle appears as No. 7 in the fist and the son of the maternal uncle as No. 19.
3. The second plea also fails. No request was made to the Court below to substitute the plaintiff's father for them as plaintiff, and the Court below was certainly under no obligation to make any such substitution of its own motion. I accordingly dismiss the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P.C.