Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.

1. Since questions which appeared intricate and of public importance arose in this Second Appeal, the appeal, has been referred by a Division Bench to the Full Bench for an authoritative decision. The two questions formulated by the referring Bench are the following :

(a) Whether the -property, inherited by a Christian convert daughter from her deceased Hindu father by virtue of Caste Disabilities Removal Act 1850 on her death prior to Hindu Womans Right to Property Act will pass to the reversioners of her father or to her own Christian progeny under the Indian Succession Act?

(b) Whether the law laid down in the cases of Fakeer Bux V/s. Saira Bagum -- , Mathongin Gupta V/s. Ramratan Roy ILR 19 Calcutta 289 and Miter Sen Singh V/s. Maqbul Hasan Khan AIR 1930 Privy Council 251 is in conflict with the views expressed by the Privy Council in Abraham V/s. Abraham (9) Moors Indian Appeal 195; Khunni Lal V/s. Kunwar Gobind Krishna Narain Indian Appeals 875 and Karimuddin V/s. Govind Krishna 36 Indian Appeals 1881?

(It appears that by inadvertands the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act has been mentioned in the question, instead of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ).

2 The aforesaid two questions arise in the second appeal pending before this Court. The facts, so far as they are relevant for decision on the question formulated, are not in dispute, I may briefly notice the material facts. Tilak Mahto, a Hindu Governed by Mitakshara School had two daughters Parbatia and Rupia. Prabatia adopted Christianity as her religion in December 1891, and thereafter on 15th December, 1891 she married one Mr. A.R. Hills. Tilak Mahto died before survey in the years 133 B.C. (corresponding to years 1926-27). His two daughters inherited his properties. Though some of the lands were recorded exclusively in the name of Parbatia, and some were recorded jointly in their favour, Parbatia, the Christian daughter, filed title suit No. 1 of 1927 and obtained a decree for partition of the estate left behind by her father. The suit was decreed, and both the daughters were declared to be entitled to equal shares in the properties left behind by their father. In that suit Parbatia claimed her share basing her claim on the provisions of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act 1850 (Act XXI of 1850) Contending that her conversion of Christianity did not affect her right to inherit the property left behind by her father. Parbatia died in the year 1955 before the Hindu Succession Act 1956 came into force.

3. After the death of Parbatia a dispute arose between the children of Parbatia (Mrs. Hills) and Rupia the Hindu daughter. While the former contended that the property inherited by Parbatia (Mrs. Hills) would be governed by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, so that after the death of Parbatia (Mrs. Hills) they were entitled to inherit the same, the latter contended that Parbatia (Mrs. Hills) had only a limited estate in the properties inherited from her Hindu Father, and therefore as a consequence, upon her death the properties must revert to the reversioners, and she being one of the heirs and reversioner was entitled to the said properties. The disputed Rupia, the Hindu daughter, to file title suit No. 58 of 1063 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit properties from the Christian heirs of Parbatia (Mrs. Hills). Rupia died during the pendency of the suit, and her adopted son Murli Gope was substituted as the plaintiff.

4. The trial court decreed the suit holding that upon the death of Parbatia (Mrs. Hills) who held a limited estate, the properties would revert back to the heirs of her father namely Rupia. Consequently Rupia and after her, heirs were entitled to claim right title and interest in the suit properties. The decree of the trial court was challenged in appeal The appellate court set aside the decree holding that the property inherited by Parbatia (Mrs. Hills) from her Hindu father became her ab