Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.
1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff or the second defendant was the person entitled as landlord to receive rent from the first defendant for property of which the latter was a mulgeni tenant.
2. The last male owner of the property had two daughters Kuppi and Savitri. Kuppi was married to Ram Hegde. The heirs of Kuppi's husband Ram Hegde are plaintiffs in this case, Savitri is the second defendant.
3. It is contended that on Kuppi's death Savitri acquired her interest in the property by survivorship. This contention is based upon certain Madras decisions of which the latest is Raja Chelikani Venkayyamma Gam v. Raja Chelikani Venka-taramanayyamma from which it appears that according to the Mitakshara as interpreted by the Madras High Court daughters inheriting from their father take jointly and do not take absolute interests in separate shares.
4. In the Bombay Presidency, however, it has long been held that a. daughter taking property from her father inherits it as stridhan, and it follows that two daughters taking from their father take their shares separately and absolutely.
5. The result is that where property so inherited has not been physically divided it is held by them as tenants in common and not as joint tenants and between them there can be no survivorship.
6. It has been urged on behalf of the respondent that we ought to follow the rulings applicable to the Madras Presidency, because this ease comes from Kanara which at the beginning of the last century formed part of the Madras Presidency.
7. The rule, however, which has been always followed in cases affecting the inheritance of property under Hindu Law is to adhere to the decisions of the Court to which the District from which the case arose is subject; and it has not been contended that in the District of North Kanara any different rule has been laid down by the Bombay High Court from that which applies to the rest of the Presidency in the case of property inherited by daughters from their father.
8. We, therefore, think that the District Judge has come to an erroneous conclusion in holding that the second defendant succeeded by survivorship to the interest of her sister in the property in suit.
9. We reverse the decree of the District Court and restore that of the Subordinate Judge.
10. The defendant No. 2 must pay the costs of this appeal and of the lower appellate Court.