Succession based on 'male agnate' requires being a 'gotraja sapinda' (same gotra). Proof of male-line descent implies identity of gotra unless an intervening adoption is proven, as adoption severs the legal gotra relationship despite physical blood ties.

Lord Macmillan:-

The previous history of this litigation is set out in the judgments of the Board delivered in 1930 and 1932 and reported in Dulahin Jadunath Kuar v. Bisheshar Bakhsh Singh , AIR 1932 PC 142=136 IC 747=59 IA 173 (PC) et seq, The original plaintiff, Raja Bisheshar Bakhsh Singh, who has since died, claimed to be entitled to the taluqa of Gangwal in succession to Raja Suraj Prakash Singh, the last male holder, who died in 1899. The present respondents are the two sons of the original plaintiff and as his legal representatives have taken his place as plaintiffs in the suit. When the case was formerly before the Board the ground was cleared of various questions which are consequently no longer in controversy. The sole remaining question, which was then formulated, but not decided, was remitted to the Chief Court of Oudh and the present appeal is from the judgment of that Court pronounced in conformity with their finding on the question remitted to them. By the previous judgments of the Board it has been decided in law that the succession to the taluqa is governed by the Oudh Estates Act of 1869 and in particular by S. 22 (10), which, as amend, ed in 1910, devolves the succession on "the nearest male agnate according to the rule of lineal primogeniture"; that the expression 'male agnate', as here used, is to be construed according to the ordinary law which would govern the succession apart from the statute, in this case the Hindu law of succession according to the rules of the Mitakshara;

and that according to this law " 'male agnate' denotes a 'gotraja sapinda', " that is, a blood relation belonging to the same gotra, a word the significance of which is explained in the judgment of the Board delivered by Sir Robert Phillimore in Bhya Rim Singh v. Agar Singh , (1870) 13 MIA 373=5 Beng LR 299=11 WRPC 1=2 Suther 330=2 Sar 566 (PC) at p. 390, and quoted in the previous report of the present case at pp. 189-190 of 59 IA. Blood relations or sapindas may be related either through males or through females. Prima facie sapindas who are related through an unbroken line of male descent are gotraja sapindas, for by virtue of such unbroken relationship they must be of the same gotra. It will thus be seen that the two conditions which, it is stated in the previous judgment of the Board (at p. 190 of 59 IA), must be satisfied by a person claiming to be a gotraja sapinda of the propositus are not really independent but interrelated, for the first condition will ordinarily be included in the second. According to the judgment of the Board of 4th December 1930, the original plaintiff, must be held to have established that, in blood relationship, he is the nearest male blood relation according to the rule of lineal primogeniture of Raja Suraj, the last male holder of the taluqa.

In the ordinary case this finding in fact would have ended the case, for, unless effectively challenged in some way, the finding of such physical relationship inevitably leads to a finding in law that the claimant is entitled to succeed as the nearest gotraja sapinda of the deceased. But the Board was confronted with an unusual state of matters. Blood relationship through the male line having been found to exist between the claimant and the propositus identity of gotra as between them was naturally to be expected. But at the trial the plaintiff stated quite definitely that his gotra was 'Atri' while there was evidence for the defence that the gotra of the propositus was 'Vaiyaghra'.

"it was ultimately agreed by both parties," as recorded in the judgment of the Board of 8th March 1932 :

(a) that if in fact the propositus was of the Vaiyaghra gotra and the plaintiff was of the Atri gotra this difference of gotra necessarily led to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not an agnate, i.e., gotraja sapinda, of the propositus; and (b) that such difference of gotra could only be accounted for by adoption into a different gotra of the plaintiff or one of his paternal ance