The principle of stare decisis should be applied in cases where the law has been declared in a particular way by the law Courts for a long time and has been the accepted view of that Court, even if a different view of the law is taken subsequently or the law is amended.

1. The following question has been referred to this Bench for opinion by one of us (Tare, J.) :

"Whether the question whether Gunhari and Sitaram inherited the tenancy lands of their father before 1897 as tenants-iu-common or as joint tenants ought to be decided on the principle of stare decisis or according to the view of the law declared by their Lordships of the Federal Court in Re Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 "

2. The genealogy of the parties is as under:

Provided that, except in the districts of Chanda, Nimar and Sambalpur, a collateral relative of the tenant shall not be entitled to inherit that right, unless at the death of the tenant he was a co-sharer in the holding."

As regards the phrase 'shall devolve as if it were land', it was urged by the learned counsel tor the appellant that the personal law of the parties was not altogether excluded and that the term 'devolution' included the rule of survivorship under the Hindu law. In this connection he invited our attention to Section 31 at page 23 of 'Principles of Hindu Law, 11th edition by Sir Dinshah F. Mulla. The learned author has discussed the question under the topic 'co-heirs' as follows:

"(1) According to the Mitakhara school two or more persons inheriting jointly take as tenants-in-common except ihe following four classes of heirs who take as joint tenants with rights of survivorship:

(a) Two or more sons, grandsons, and great grandsons, succeeding as heirs to the separate or self-acquired property of their partnal ancestor.

(b) Two or more grandsons, by a daughter, who are living as members of a joint family succeeding as heirs to their ma'ernal grandfather. A recent decision of the Madras High Court has held that in property inherited by two or more daughter's sons from their maternal grand-mother there can be no right of survivorship and the daughter's sons take as tenants in common. The decision in Vankayyamma v. Venkataramanayyamma has been held to be no longer a binding authority on nature and incidents of property inherited by daughter's sons from their maternal grand-father.

(c) Two or more widows succeeding as heirs to their husband.

(d) Two or more daughters succeeding as heirs to their father, except in the Bombay State where they take an absolute estate in severalty.

(2) According to the Dayabhag school two or more persons inheriting jointly take as tenants-in-common, except only (1) widows, and (2) daughters who take as joint tenants with rights of survivorship."

It is clear that if Hindu law with all its implications were to be applied, Gunhari and Sitaram would be joint tenants after the death of Abhinath and the rule of survivorship would be applicable to them.

7. Their Lordships of the Federal Court, while interpreting the word 'devolution' in Section 5 of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, held in that the term 'devolution' would include the rule o survivorship. In view of the authoritative interpretation laid down by their Lordships of the Federal Court, no other interpretation is possible as regards the term 'devolution' which, in our opinion, would include the rule of survivorship. But the real question, in the present case. is whether we should adopt the said interpretation or should decide the case on the principle of stare decisis.

8. It is necessary to trace the history of the relevant provisions in the different C. P. Tenancy Acts enacted from time to time. Section 43 (1) of the C. P. Tenancy Act IX of 1883 has already been reproduced earlier. It was, later on, replaced by Section 46(1) of the C-P. Tenancy Act, XI of 1898, which is as follows :--

"When an occupancy tenant dies his right in his holding shall devolve as if it were land

Provided that except in the districts of Cnanda, Nimar and Sambalpur, a collateral relative of the tenant shall not be entitled to inherit that right, unless at the death of the tenant he was a co-sharer, in the holding or unless, failing any such co-sharer, he held land, or was permanently