SUNGAI UJONG. 
135 
9. Sohor, 
10. Sitam, 
11. Che Ara (a woman), 
12. Gudam, 
13. Suborn (deposed), 
14. Said, 
15. Haji Ahmad, 
16. Mat Sah, 
17. Abdullah bin Ahmad bin 
Dato’ Ivlana Kawal. 
Now that the Bandar has been raised above the rank of a 
lembaga, the Dato’ Sri Maharaja may be regarded as the principal 
lembaga of the warts di-ay er. This family is divided into five 
branches, — one keturunan and four perut, — the traditional pedigree 
being as follows: 
Bendaliara Sekudai 
To’ Semerga 
m. Rambutan Jantan or 
Behai Marnat of Pasai. 
I I . I I I 
To’ Sulong (f.) Dato’ Kling To’ Sum To’ Sum To’ Su.su 
(Bandar). Tunggal (f.) Ganda (f.) Darn (f.) 
In the days of succession through the direct male line the 
titles of Bandar and Sri Maharaja Diraja were monopolized by the 
descendants of Dato’ Kling. Now, under the adat per pat eh, the 
descendants of Dato’ K ling’s sisters also claim to be warn di-ayer, 
Historically those claims may not carry weight, but doubtless there 
were good reasons why they should be taken seriously. There does 
not appear to be any system of gilir or rotation between the various 
branches of this large and ancient family. 
The title of the Dato’ Anduleka Manduleka also is ancient. 
This Dato’ governed the mukim of Pantai and was one of the four 
principal lembaga or Hang balai of the Klana’s court; the mem- 
bers of his family were included in the waris di-darat or Klana’s 
own house. But they were not allowed to succeed to the position 
of Klana, an anomaly explained by the theory that this family 
descended only by adoption from To’ Sri Mani, daughter of the 
Bendahara Sekudai and reputed foundress of the Anduleka Man- 
duleka family. The reputed holders of the title are given in the 
following list: — 
1. Dato’ Lantur, 
8. 
Alang, 
2. 
Tebu Amba, 
9. 
Lembing, 
3. 
Dengut, 
10. 
Gentum, 
4. 
Jadi, 
11. 
Minah, 
5. 
Jaya, 
12. 
Chantek, 
6. 
Segar, 
13. 
Haji Muhammad Rashid. 
7. 
XJlang, 
The Dato’ Akhir-zaman of Rantau, another of the lembaga 
Hang balai, counts as a waris di-ayer though there does not appear 
R. A. Soc., No. 83, 1921. 
