Wallis, C.J.

1. I agree with the conclusion of Krishnan, J., in his Order of Eeference that, independently of Section 2 of Act XV of 1856, the widow of a Hindu forfeits her husbands estate on re-marriage. This was in my opinion decided by this Court in Murugayi v. Viramakali (1877) I.L.R. 1 Mad. 226, a decision which, as I shall show, has been repeatedly approved in this and other High Courts. That decision did not, as was contended before us, proceed on any proof of a custom of forfeiture on re-marriage in the particular caste, but on general principles of Hindu Law, though in support of its conclusion the Court referred, as the Bombay Court did in a later case, to the fact that the extensive enquiry the results of which are recorded in Steeles Hindu Castes showed that among the very numerous classes of Hindus who practised re-marriage in the Deccan such a forfeiture was an invariable incident of re-marriage. Following and relying on the decision of this Court, Wilson and Banerji, JJ. Matungini Gupta v. Ram Rutton Roy (1891) I.L.R. 19 Cal. 289 in their Orders of Reference, to which they adhered in their subsequent judgments, expressed the opinion that Section 2 of Act XV of