Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (March 23, 1910) affirming a judgment and decree of the District Court of Balaghat (February 26, 1907).

The suit was instituted by the appellants, three brothers, to recover possession of immovable property which they claimed as reversionary heirs, according to the Mitakshara law, of one Lakshman Rao. As appears from the pedigree set out in the judgment of their Lordships, the appellants, claiming through their mother Rangoobai, were sixth in descent (counting in the usual way, namely, including both first and last as a degree) from Timaji Pant, the grandfather of Lakshman Rao. The respondents (defendants) were the husband of Lakshman Kaos deceased daughter and their son.

20 Law. Rep. 41 Ind. App. 290 ( 1913- 1914) Ramchandra Martand Waikar V. Vinayak Venkatesh Kothekar 121

It was admitted in the present appeal, though it had been otherwise contended by the respondents in India, that the family of Timaji Pant was governed by the Mitakshara law. The sole question for determination accordingly became whether or not the appellants were within the limits of heritable bandhus recog nized by that law.

The learned District Judge upon this question held that the appellants, claiming through their mother and being sixth in descent from the common ancestor Timaji Pant, were outside the limits of heritable bandhus recognized by the Mitakshara law and had no claim ; he, therefore, dismissed the suit.

The appellants appealed to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, which, by its judgment delivered on March 23, 1910, affirmed the decision of the District Judge.

De Gruyther, K.C., and Parikh, for the appellants. The appellants are entitled under the Mitakshara, c. II., s. 6, to the inheritance claimed. The word " sapinda " in that passage means blood relation of whatever degree. The word is first used in the Mitakshara in a generic sense for purposes of inheritance, meaning simply blood relation. It is also used in a specific and restricted sense in three connections, namely, (1.) marriage prohibition, (2.) stradh, and (3.) impurity ; these uses of the word, however, are exceptions and do not control its general meaning as a blood relation. In the text of Manu

(c. IX., v. 186, Sir William Jones translation), " to the nearest sapinda the inheritance next belongs," the Mitakshara assigns to " sapinda" the meaning blood relation. The sapinda relationship under the Mitakshara is based upon consanguinity and not upon religious merit Mitakshara, Achara-kanda, c. III.; G. Sastris Hindu Law, pp. 52—58 ; Sarvadhikaris Hindu Law of Inheritance, ed. 1882, p. 605 ; Bannerjees Hindu Law of Marriage, ed. 1879, p. 60; West and Buhler’s Hindu Law, vol. i., p. 120; and Umaid Bahadur v. Udoi Chand.(( 1880) I. L. R. 6 Calc. 119, at p. 124.) The rules of inheritance under the Mitakshara are not based upon the right to offer funeral oblations as is the case under the Dayabhaga Maynes Hindu Law, 7th ed., p. 7 and p. 678. Colebrookes translation of Mitakshara, c. II., s. 5, which connects sapinda with funeral oblations, is incorrect Lallubhai Bapubhai v. Mankuvarbhai.(( 1876) I. L. R. 2 Bomb. 388, at p. 431) In Mitakshara, c. IL, ss. 5 and 6, " sapinda " is used in a restricted sense with regard to funeral oblations and in reference to the gotra only. Even within the gotra the right of inheritance is not limited to sapindaship in the narrow funeral oblation sense Gridhari hall Roy v. Bengal Government. (( 1868) 12 Moo. Ind. Ap. 448.) [Reference was also made to Yajnavalkya, c. I. (52.) and (53.) and c. II. (57.) to (61.); Mandlik, pp. 345 and 391; Vyavastha Chandrika, p. 193 ; and Sastris Viramitrodaya, pp. 156 and 199.] Both Courts below, relying on Umaid Bahadur v. Udoi Chand (I. L. R. 6 Calc. 119.) and Babu Lal v. Nanku Ram (( 1894) I. L. R. 22 Calc. 339.), held that the limitation in the case of marriage applied to inheritance. But different authorities give different degre