Hindu residents of North Kanara District are governed by Bombay school of Hindu law, not Madras school.

Bhagwati, J.

1. These three appeals raise a common question of law whether the Hindu residents of the North Kanara pistrict are governed by the Madras school of Hindu law or the Bombay school of Hindu law.

2. One Narayan, a haveek Brahmin of North Kanara district, died leaving him surviving two SODS Narasinha Putta. Narasinha, Putta effected a severance of joint status inter $e. Putta had three grandsons, Timmanna, Shankar Venkappa, in 1915 there was a partition between Venkappa on the one hand Timmanna Shankar on the other. Timmanna Shankar contitued joint inter se and Shankar died leaving him surviving his widow Kamali. Timmannft thereafter became the sole surviving coparcener of the joint family he died in 1936 leaving behind him no nearest heir but the widow Kamali, of his brother Shankar. After the death of Timmanna. aa aforesaid the name of Kamali was entered in the record of rights as his heir she took possession of all the properties, Kamali continued to enjoy the properties until her death in 1989. After her death Yenkanna, the deft who belonged to Narasinhas branch of the joint family, got his name entered into the record of rights on 12-6-1939. The pltf. who was the widow of the son of Venkappa, filed the suit, out of which the L. P. A. nO, 6 of 1949 arises, against the deft, claiming to recover possession of the properties the future mesne profits costs, alleging that, as the widow of a gotraja sapinda nearer in propinquity than the deft, she was entitled to succeed to the estate of Timmanna as his heir. This claim of the pltf. was denied by the deft, who contended that the law applicable to the parties was not the Mitaksbara law as administered in the Bombay Presidency but that it was a different one as they belonged to the Baudhayana Sutra. It was also contended that the District of North Kanara was originally comprised in the Madras Presidency the law applicable to the residents of the said district was the one as administered in the Madras Presidency, that therefore the pltf. being the widow of Timmannaa brothers son would not be the heir to the estate of Timmanna in preference to the deft. The suit was filed on 18-12-1989. The learned Subordinate Judge at Sirei who tried the suit held that the parties were not governed by the law applicable in the Madras Presidency in the matter of inheritance or succession that the pltf. was the nearest heir to Timmannas estate after Kamalis death passed a deoree in favour of the pltf. This decree was passed on 20-1-1941. The deft, filed an appeal in the District Ct. of Kanara at Karwar the learned Dist. J. on 7-6-1943, allowed the appeal, reversed the decree of the lower Ct. dismissed the pltf.s suit with costs throughout, holding that the law prevailing in tha Madras Presidency was applicable to the case. The pltf. preferred a second appeal, being S. A. No. 977 of 1943, from this decree of the appellate Ct. The second appeal came on for hearing final disposal before Gajendragadkar J. on 17-1-1946, he delivered an interlocutory judgment observing that it was desirable that the pltf. should be allowed to allege specifically that the community to which the parties belonged was governed by the Bombay school of Hindu law in matters of succession the deft should be allowed to make a denial of the aaid plea, that after the pleadings were thus amended a proper issue should be framed as to whether in matters of succession the parties to the suit are governed by the Bombay school of Hindu law or by the law as administered in the Madras Presidency. The matter being thus remanded came before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sirsi, who, on 19-8-1946, recorded the finding that the parties were not governed by the Bombay school of Hindu law in n atters of succession that they were governed by the law as administered in the Pro- vince of Madras. This finding was considered by the learned Dist. 3. Kanara, on 22-10-1946, he found