The personal law of a family is determined by its origin, and not by the lex loci, unless it can be shown that the family has renounced its original law in favor of the law of the place to which it migrated.

( 1 ) VIKRAM and Lahanu were real brothers, residing separately. Lahanu died, leaving his daughter Mst. Radha, who came in possession of Khasra No. 13/1, area 1. 94 acres of mouza Khedi Pandewar, Tahsil Sausar, District Chhindwara. On 2nd april 1948 Mst. Radha sold the said field to Udebhan (appellant) for a sum of Rs. 2,000/ -. The plaintiff Vikram, who is now dead and whose legal representatives are three respondents before me, challenged the alienation saying that the family was governed by the Benaras School of Hindu Law and Mst. Radha was the limited owner and could not effect the permanent alienation of the field in suit and that there was no legal necessity for effecting such a transfer. He, therefore, filed the suit for possession of khasra No. 13/1. The defendant (appellant) contended that the family of Mst. Radha belonged to the Maharashtrian teli community and that they migrated from Berar; hence they were governed by the Bombay School of Mitakshara Law. He also said that the field in question was sold by Mst. Radha for legal necessity.

( 2 ) THE trial Court took the view that Mst. Radha and her father Lahanu were governed by the Bombay School of Mitakshara Law, and dismissed the suit. On the other hand, the first appellate Court has taken the view that the lex loci, that is, the Benaras School of Hindu Law will govern the parties; As there was no legal necessity, the first appeal has been allowed and the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed. The defendant Udebhan now comes in second appeal before this Court.

( 3 ) I need not go through the evidence, as it is well settled that Vikram and Lahanu and the family are Maharashtrian Telis, that they speak Marathi language and that the family follows the manners and customs prevalent amongst the Marathas and the Maharashtrian Brahmins, that whenever Lahanu went on pilgrimage and whenever any member of the community went on, pilgrimage, they went to pandharpur, that their sir name was Madankar, that they have relations in Berar and that their women-folk wore saris which are on the lines of the Deccan maharashtrian Brahmin ladies. It is also evident that the family resides at Marud, a village only two miles away from the border of Morsi Tahsil of District Amravati in Berar. On the facts, alluded to above, the question will arise : Can it be held without anything more that the family should be governed by the Bombay School of Hindu Law? It may be noted that in the Bombay School, the daughter inherits an absolute estate from the father.

( 4 ) I may add here that Volume IV of the Tribes and Castes of the Central provinces of India by Russell relating to Tellis does not help to solve the question. I, therefore, referred to the Chhindwara District Gazetteer, where at page 55 it is observed :

". . . in Sausar (Tahsil) there is a strong Maratha element from the adjoining territories of Nagpur, Wardha and Berar. "

( 5 ) THERE are several decisions of this Court on the point. The first decision is reported in, Hiralal v. Mt. Tani Bai and Jagram Sav. 2 CPLR 18 (A), which was a case from district Balaghat, where it was observed that the parties must be taken to be governed by the Benaras School of Law, as that School is followed here unless there is express evidence of a local usage modifying it.

( 6 ) THE second case is Deorao Zamindar v. Mt. Sakhu Bai, 11 CPLR 49 (B ). This rase also came from District Balaghat. It is round at page 53-54 that Hira Lal v. Tani bai (A) (cited supra) has been followed in laying down that the Panaras school of law is to be the ordinary lex loci. But it Is clearly observed that in other cases so far as the Districts of Wardba and nagpur were concerned, it was laid down in those cases that the school of law prevailing was the Maharashtra school if persons were of Mahratta origin, and in a case Mr. Neill said that there was no reason why the same rule "should not apply to other Mahrathas settled in these parts". In Ganno v. Beni, AIR 1917 Nag