Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The facts have been set out in the judgment of my learned brother which I have had the advantage of reading before writing this opinion of mine. I have considered in Subramania Mudaliar v. Ranga-natham Chettiar (1918) 24 M.L.J. 301 the Sloka about Atma bandhus, Pitru bandhus and Matru bandhus which is attributed to Baudhayana by one commentator and Vriddah Satatapa by others. I have expressed my considered opinion in that case that the sloka is a childish and spurious text and that it is an illogical, incomplete and inconsistent classification of bandhus. Mr. S. Srinivasa Aiyangar with great legal acumen and a wealth of legal terms of highly subtle meaning tried to establish that the classification was not so illogical or inconsistent as I thought. I can only say that he has merely confirmed me in my view, though it may be that the subtlety and, what he called, the intricacy of the ideas involved in the classification make it so elusive as to escape the grasp of ordinary minds including my own.

2. As regards the case in Umaid Bahadur v. Udai Chand (1880). I.L.R. 6 Cal. 119 I recognise that it contains the opinion of a full Bench of 5 Judges of whom Mr. J