Under the Madras School of Mitakshara law, female Bandhus are entitled to inherit as heirs, and the principle of propinquity of blood-relationship applies to them.

JUDGMENT :

Das, J. - The Defendants have filed the appeal against the confirming judgment of the District Judge, Koraput, arising out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and for mesne profits.

2. Guru Majhi, the father of the Plaintiff Subhadra and the father of Mangala Majhi are two brothers. In other words, the Plaintiff is the father's brother's daughter of Mangala. Plaintiff's father died some twenty years back. Plaintiff's case is that after her father's death, she and Mangala were jointly recorded in respect of the suit-property and were enjoying the same. Mangala died sometime in the year 1954-55. Long before the death of Mangala, though Plaintiff married to one Gundicha, she along with Mangala remained in possession of the suit property. On 24-2-1953 Mangala is said to have illegally gifted the suit property in favour of Defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 1 is the father and Defendants 2 and 3 are his sons. The Plaintiff now challenges the said gift as invalid and claims the property as heir of Mangala.

3. Defendant's case is that Guru Majhi and Mangala Majhi became separate about 20 years back during the lifetime of Guru. After her marriage Plaintiff remained at her husband's place and was not in possession of the suit-property. The suit properties were in exclusive possession of Mangala and sometime before his death, he gifted it in favour of Defendant No. 3 and delivered possession to him. They also took the plea of adverse possession stating that the Plaintiff was ousted from possession for more than 12 years.

4. Both the courts held that the Defendants had failed to prove a valid gift and also their title by adverse possession. They also found that the father of the Plaintiff died in joint ness with Mangala. They found title in favour of the Plaintiff and decreed the suit, though the claim for mesne profits was disallowed. It is against this decision of the courts below the Defendants have come up in appeal.

5. Mr. Murty, learned Counsel for the Appellants did not rightly challenge the concurrent findings of the courts below. His main contention, however, was that even accepting the findings of the courts below it may at best be taken that the Plaintiff's father died in a state of joint ness with Mangala and with the latter the property became his separate property, yet the Plaintiff being the father's brother's daughter of Mangala, she was not one of the recognised legal heirs under the Benares School of Mitakhara law as is prevalent in Orissa, and as such she is not entitled to inherit the property as that school does not recognise females as Bandhus, the only class of heirs she can claim to be. Accordingly the suit was liable to be dismissed.

6. Mr. P.V.B. Rao, on the other hand contends that the parties are governed by the Madras School of Mitakhara law which admits females as Bandhus as heirs and as such there is no legal bar to the Plaintiff to succeed to the estate of Mangala Majhi, whose father's brother's daughter she is.

7. The parties are admittedly Oriya Hindus and come from the district of Koraput which was once a part of Madras Presidency, and became a part of Orissa in 1936. It is well settled by authorities that the Oriyas of Ganjam and Koraput districts which have now been transferred to Orissa, were governed by the Madras School of Hindu Law, See Raghunath v. Brajakishore ILR Mad 69. This position has been accepted by this Court in a case, Bada Ananda Padhan v. Dando Naik AIR 1952 Oria 307. Mr. Murty, however, attempted to distinguish this case on the ground that that was not a case of inheritance, but was one of adoption and all that was held in that case was that the Oriyas of the ex-Madras areas of Ganjam and Koraput Districts continue to be governed by the Madras School of law in matters relating to adoption. It makes no difference, however, whether it is a case of adoption or of inheritance. It is well-settled that the parties carry their personal law with them wherever they g