Seshagiri Ayyar, J.

1. The property in dispute was given to the first defendant by her father in 1898 before she was married to the plaintiff: she sold the property to the third defendant in 1912. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that the sale is invalid. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit.

2. There can be no question that if this property is Saudayika, the first defendant was entitled to deal with it at her pleasure. The main argument, therefore, was directed to showing that the term Saudayika does not include gifts prior to marriage. The nature of stridhanam property and its classification with reference to inheritance have given rise to conflicting views. In the Benares School, Courts may be spared a great deal of discussion if the view of the Mitakshara is fully accepted. Vignaneswara commenting on Yagnavalkyas text in Chapter 2, Section 11, paragraph 2, says: "That which was given by the father, by the mother, by the husband or by a brother; and that which was presented by the maternal uncles and the rest, at the time of wedding, before the nuptial fire; and a gift on a second marriage or gratuity on account of supersession, as will be subsequently explained in