Judgment

HEGDE, J.:- The question of law that arises for decision in these appeals by certificate is whether the daughter of a predeceased son of a Hindu woman are entitled to succeed to her stridhana? The trial Court answered the question in the affirmative but the High Court in appeal came to the conclusion that they are not entitled to succeed to the state in question.

2. The material facts of this case are few. For a proper understanding of the facts of the case, it will be convenient to have before us the admitted pedigree of the family. It is as follows:-

3. The finding of the trial Court that the suit properties are the stridhana properties of Barji was not contested before the High Court. In this Court at one stage a feeble attempt was made on behalf of the appellants to contest that finding. We did not permit that finding to be challenged as the same had not been challenged before the High Court. Therefore we proceed on the basis of that finding. Barji died in September 1950. Her husband Patu Ram had predeceased her. It appears he died sometime in 1904. Patu Ram s father Bool Chand as well as Patu Ram s brothers Tulsi Ram, Behari Lal and Hira Lal had predeceased Barji. Patu Ram and Barji had a son by name Jugal Kishore who had predeceased Patu Ram leaving behind him his widow Bindri who died in 1931. They had no children. Radha Kishan, the adopted son of Patu Ram and Barji died about 20 years before the death of Barji leaving behind him his widow, defendant No. 6. Radha Kishan had five children including defendants Nos. 1 to 3 through another wife. His son Roshanlal had died a few months before the death of Barji. His daughter Balwanti had predeceased Barji leaving behind her children defendants 4 and 5. Tulsi Ram s son Prahlad Rai had also predeceased Barji leaving behind his widow defendant No. 8 and son defendant No. 7. By the time succession to the estate of Barji opened all the children of Behari Lal and Hiralal had died but some of them had children and grandchildren as seen from the pedigree. After the death of Barji, her properties came to the possession of defendant No. 6. Defendant No. 1 sued for the possession of those properties on the ground that she and her sisters are preferential heirs to the deceased Barji. To that suit she did not make Amar Nath, the plaintiff in the present suit, a party. Amar Nath s application for being impleaded as a party in that suit was opposed by the 1st defendant and the said application was ultimately rejected by the Court. The dispute in that suit was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators upheld the claim of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. Thereafter the present suit was brought. In the High Court as well as in the trial Court there was a triangular contest. The plaintiff claimed that he was exclusively entitled to the suit properties, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 claimed that they are the nearest heirs to Barji; some of the other defendants contended that they succeeded to the suit properties as co-tenants with the plaintiff. In this Court all the contesting defendants sail together. As mentioned earlier, the trial Court accepted the claim of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 but the High Court held that the plaintiff was exclusively entitled to the suit properties, he being the nearest heir to the deceased. That finding is contested both by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 as well as by the other contesting defendants. That is how the aforementioned two appeals came to be filed.

4. In arriving at its finding the High Court relied on the rules of succession found in paragraph 147 of Mulla s Principles of Hindu Law (13th Edn.). It came to the conclusion that those rules are exhaustive. On the basis of those rules, it ruled that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were not entitled to succeed to the estate of Barji. So far as the other defendants are concerned it rejected their claim on the ground that as between the plaintiff and themselves the former is a preferential heir as he is the nearest in degree to Barji.

5. It