JOTINDRA NATH ROY Vs. NAGENDRA NATH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no dispute as to the facts in this case. The sole question is as to which of two sets of cognates is entitled to succeed to the estate of a deceased Hindu who may for convenience be referred to as the propositus. The pedigree of the parties is as follows, the names of females being printed in italics :

(2.) It will be seen from the above that the appellant is a son of a sister of the mother of the propositus, while the respondents are sons of a half-sister of his father. The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted by the appellant. He had two brothers who apparently refused to support his suit. They were joined as co-defendants with the respondents, but have taken no part in the proceedings.

(3.) Both the Courts in India held that the respondents are the preferential heirs, though on slightly different grounds, with the result that the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff has obtained leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council in forma pauperis, and has appeared in person before the Board. He is, their Lordships are informed, a qualified legal practitioner, and has argued his case in great detail, having evidently studied the intricate questions of Hindu law which are involved with commendable industry. Their Lordships do not think that his cause has suffered for want of more experienced advocacy. In the Indian Courts there was a suggestion that the case was governed by the Dayabhaga law, but before the Board it has been admitted that the parties are governed by the Benares School of the Mitakshara, under which it is now well settled that the primary test in all questions of inheritance is propinquity in blood.