Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The main question to be decided in this appeal is whether the English doctrine of advancement applies to Indian Christians. The rule does not apply to Hindus or Mohammadans. See Gopeekrist Gosain v. Gungapersaud Gosain (1854) 6 M.I.A. 53 Sum Lakshmiah Chetty v. Kothandarama Pillai (1925) 49 M.L.J. 109 : L.R 52 IndAp 286 : I.L.R. Mad. 605 Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Banjit Singh (1915) 29 M.L.J. 335 : L.R 42 IndAp 202 : I.L.R.. 37 All. 557 and Maulvie Sayyud Uzhur Ali v. Mst. Bebee Ultaf Fatima (1869) 13 M.I.A. 232. In Maung Tun Pe v. V. K. Haider I.L.R. (1936) Bang. 242 a Full Bench of the Rangoon High Court held that it did not apply to Burmese Buddhists. In Kerwick v. Kerwick (1920) 39 M.L.J. 296 : L.R 47 IndAp 275 : I.L.R. 48 Cal. 260 the Privy Council held that the presumption of an advancement does apply to persons who are born in India of English parents and have resided in India all their lives, except for occasional visits to England. . Admittedly there is no decision of the Privy Council or of Indian Courts which has extended the application of the principle.

2. Before discussing further the question whether the doctrine of advancement a