(1.) The only question argued in this appeal is whether the fifth male descendant in a particular line collateral to that of the propositus is to be preferred to the widow of one in the third degree in the same collateral line.
(2.) It is conceded that the question has been decided in the affirmative in regard to Hindus in this Presidency governed by the law of the Mitakshara : see Kashibai Ganesh v. Sitabai Raghunath Shivram applying the principle enunciated in Rachava v. Kalingapa (1892) I.L.R. 16 Bom. 716. It is, however, contended that the law is different where the parties belong to that part of the country where the law of the Mayukha prevails. This contention is met by the pleader for the respondents by reference to a decision of an appellate Bench of this Court in Bai Mahalaxmi v. Bai Suraj see p. 263, infra (note.) in which the principle stated in Rachava v. Kalingapa (1892) I.L.R. 16 Bom. 716 was applied as between litigants from Gujarat governed by the law of the Mayukha. We are now asked to disregard this decision and to apply a rigid and logical rule of propinquity which has admittedly never been given effect to and in the statement of which no reference can be found to the widows of got raja sapindas. We think we are bound by the decision in Bai Mahalaxmi v. Bai Suraj see p. 263, infra (note.) and we see no reason to disagree with it.
(3.) We dismiss the appeal with costs.