ORDER

Sulaiman and young, JJ. - One important question raised in this appeal is that even if the dedication made by Mt. Rajwanti, a Hindu widow, was without the oral authority of her deceased husband, the alienation was only voidable at the option of the next reversioner, and therefore the defendants have no locus standi to challenge the alienation. This is based on the contention that according to the pedigree, as printed on p. 3 of the paper book, defendants 4 and 5 are not the heritable bandhus of the last male owner Suraj Prasad. The latter question is undoubtedly a substantial and important question of Hindu law which requires an authoritative pronouncement. The learned advocate for the plaintiffs strongly relies on the statement of the law as contained in Dr. Sarvadhikari's book on the Principles of the Hindu Law of Inheritance, Edn. 2, pp. 571-2, where he emphasized that if there are two females (on the father's side), these two again must be related as mother and daughter. He also strongly relies on the classification of the cognate sapindas who can be heritable bandhus given by the same learned author on pp. 591-2. Further reliance is placed on the case of Girja Nand Vs. His Highness the Maharaja Parbhu Narain Singh, Kashi Naresh and Others, AIR 1923 All 398 decide by a Bench of this Court. In that case the plaintiff was the great-grandson of the sister of the father of the propositus. The learned Judges relying on the passage in Dr. Sarvadhikari's Principles of the Hindu Law of Inheritance, held that he was not an heir. With great respect we would say that we have some doubts as to the correctness of this decision. It is however pointed out that the test laid down by Dr. Sarvadhikari, and the rule of law in Girja Nand Vs. His Highness the Maharaja Parbhu Narain Singh, Kashi Naresh and Others, AIR 1923 All 398 were approved of by another Bench of this Court in Ram Sia and Another Vs. Bua where the previous decision of this Court in Shib Sahai and Others Vs. Saraswati and Another, AIR 1915 All 409 was also explained.

2. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that a Bench of the Madras High Court in Kesar Singh v. Secy. of State AIR 1926 Mad. 881 has expressly dissented from Dr. Sarvadhikari's view. The judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Bamckandra Mart and v. Vinayah Venkatesh AIR 1914 P.C. 1, which was incorrectly reported in 12 A. L. J. 1281, does not reproduce the tests laid down by Dr. Sarvadhikari.

3. As the case is of a high valuation, we think that the following question of law should be decided by a larger Bench:

On the pedigree as given on p. 8 of the paper book, are defendants 4 and 5 heritable bandhus of Suraj Prasad in the absence of any nearer heir.

4. We direct that the record be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger Bench.

Sulaiman, J.

5. The question for consideration in this reference is whether the last male owner's father's father's daughter's son's daughter's sons are his heritable bindhus. The admitted 'pedigree is as follows:

                         Shri Tewari.                              |                   |-----------------------------|             Mt. Badama                     Sheo Ghulam                   |                             |                Snkhdeo                     Suraj Prasad.                   |                         (Propositus)              Mt. Kalwati.                   |           |-----------------|       Kosho (Deft. 4)   Kali (Deft. 5.)

6. The learned advocate for the claimants contends that inasmuch as Kesho and Kali are within five degrees of the common ancestor Shri Tewari, (when the claimants, their female ancestor and the common ancestor are all included in counting), and Suraj Prasad was within only three degrees of the common ancestor, the case is covered by the rule laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Bamchandra v. Vinayah AIR 1914 P.C. 1. He has to concede that their Lordshi