1. The only question which arises for our decision in this case is, whether an uncle's daughter is or is not gotraja sapinda. Mr. Bhat for the appellant has sought to argue from a case of a sister that this question should be answered in the affirmative. It is almost sufficient to point out that Mr. Bhat has been forced to admit that the logical conclusion of his line of reasoning would be that all females must necessarily be counted as gotraja saprindas. We think that this would be contrary to the fundamental principles of the Hindu law as hitherto interpreted by our Court. The lower Court has correctly stated that as a general rule, the Hindu law is opposed to succession of females and that such female heirs as have been recognized as entitled to inherit come in as exceptions to this general rule. It is therefore unsound to attempt to extend these exceptions by arguing that there is any principle involved in those cases where such exceptions are permitted. The special case of a sister can only be justified on the grounds which are special to herself as has been repeatedly decided in the decisions of this Court. We are not prepared to argue from the case of a sister to that of more distant relations, and to thereby extend the list of female heirs further than has already been done in this presidency. It is admitted that there is no decision which is directly in point on this question, and such passages as have been cited to us from other decisions do not, we think, bear out the line of argument which is sought to be based upon them. In those cases the position of a sister is in question, and as is well known every case is only an authority upon its own facts. We think that the attempt to extend the list to an uncles daughter must necessarily fail, and we, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.
2. Plaintiff to pay costs of the respondents and the Court fees which would have been paid if she had not been allowed to appeal in forma pauperis.
Heaton, Ag. C.J.
3. I concur.