JUDGEMENT

Appeal (No. 46 of 1940) from a decree of the High Court (April 13, 1937) which affirmed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Muttra (September 13, 1933).

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee The only question for decision in this appeal was one of law, namely, whether the words " sisters "son" in s. 2 of the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929—hereinafter referred to as " the Act "—included the son of a half-sister. "Sect. 2 of the Act is as follows "A sons daughter, daughters daughter, sister, and sisters "son shall, in the order so specified, be entitled to rank in the "order of succession next after a fathers fat! and before a "fathers brother

"Provided that a sisters son shall not include a son adopted "after the sisters death."

The facts of the case were not in dispute. The parties were Hindus governed by the law of the Mitakshara. The property in the suit belonged to one Krishna Murari, who was the last male owner. It was claimed by the respondent, Ram Babu, the plaintiff in the action, who was Krishna Muraris fathers uncles son. His claim was resisted by Musammat Sahodra, the defendant, for herself and on