If a Hindu family migrates to a new region but continues to observe the religious ceremonies and customs of its ancestral region, the law of succession of the ancestral region governs the inheritance, prioritizing paternal kindred over maternal kindred.

Judgement

This was an appeal from a decision on a question of Hindu law and usage the point at issue being, whether the laws according to the Shatters or books of authority current in the district of Mitheela in the country of Tirhoot, (from whence the ancestors of the Respondents had originally emigrated, and the religion of which had been uniformly observed by his descendants,) were to govern the right of succession to property from such ancestors, or the Shasters in use in Gour Doss or Bengal, where part of the property was situate, and in which district the party last in possession was domiciled.

Rajah Indur Narain Rae, the last male proprietor of the Zemindary of Havila Parnea, (the property in question,) was descended in a direct line, and related in the sixth degree to Bigge Poomph Sumroo Chowdrey, who originally emigrated from Parnea, the adjacent district of Mitheela or Tirhoot, to Bengal.

The Rajah having no children, the Zemindary descended on his death to his widow Rannee Indrawutta who continued in possession during her life, and died in 1603.

Immediately on her decease Sree Narain the father of the Respondents, and Lullit Narain. who were also descended in the sixth degree from Sumroo Chowdry, claimed to be the heirs of the late Rajah, and took possession of the Zemindar but Gung a Dutt (the father of the Appellants) who was the nephew of the late Rajah by marriage, being the son of his wifes only sister, and as such the maternal first cousin of the late Rajah, claimed to be entitled according to the Shasters of Bengal.

In consequence of these adverse claims, Gunga Dutt I ha in the month of January 1805, commenced a suit in the Zillah Court of Poorneah for the recovery of Zemindary, claiming, as the khalatee brother or first cousin of the late Rajah, to be his heir-at-law and personal representative; and as such entitled to his estates. He set up a claim also, which was afterwards abandoned, of having been adopted by the Rajah.

Sree Narain Rae and Lullit Narain Roe by their answer denied the title of Gunga Dutt Iha as khalatee brother of the Rajah, and insisted that the Shasten decided the inheritance to belong to them, as descended from a common ancestor with the Rajah ; and they requested that the case might be decided according to the Shasters of Tirhaot, which were in usage in the country, and particularly amongst the Brahmins of Mitheel who were entirely ruled by them.

To this Gunga Dutt replied, that on the authority of the Rutnakur, the most excellent of the pothees (or treatises) in usage in Tirhoot, and the Bebad Ghunder, the rules of which are in usage in Bengal, his right was incontrovertible ; he cited also various other authorities; and in order to show that the Dafendanta could have no right to the succession, as relations within the seventh degree to the Rajah, he alleged, that relations descended from a common grandfather, or to four descents, give the pind (or funeral cake) to the manes of their ancestors, which stops in the fifth ; so that, the near relationship then ceases also.

The Defendants filed their rejoinder to this reply, citing various Buchuns or texts of law-givers, in support of their tibia ; they disclaimed the usages of Bengal and of baa Deccan, and relied principally upon the authority of Maha Maha Opediah Bacheesput, Misser of Mitheela, the compiler of the Bibad Chintamenei, whom they represented as the most celebrate of the pundits of Ttrhoot, and whose laws they stated, " are to this day venerated above all others by the Mitheelas."

Both parties exhibited and filed genealogical tables of their respective families Sree Narain and Lullit Narain being lineally descended from Sumroo Chowdry the paternak great grandfather of the great grandfather of Rajah Inder Narain

It appeared that all religious ceremonies, as well as those of a civil nature, including marriage, were per- formed in the families both of the Plaintiffs and Defendants, as well as in the family of the late Rajah Inde