Charles Sargent, C.J.
1. It has been found by the Assistant Judge that the house in question was given to Rajkore by a stranger to the family; and that the moneys invested in the Government Savings' Bank were earned by Rajkore herself. The law of inheritance as laid down in the Mayukha, (which would determine the, course of inheritance in this case), prescribes that the devolution, of such property should be as if Rajkore had been a male; it would, therefore, vest in the plaintiff as the nearest gotraja sapinda-Vithaldas Manickdas v. Jeshubai I.L.R., 4 Bom., 219 . It is clear, however, and indeed was not disputed, that it would be contrary to equity and good conscience to allow her to recover the property from defendant No. 1 without permitting him to recoup himself out of it as to such moneys as he had expended either on Rajkore's funeral expenses or had paid at her desire to discharge the debts of her son Dhaneshwar. As the Assistant Judge has not recorded a finding on the fourth and fifth points raised by him, we must send down the case for a finding on the following issues:
1. Did defendant No. 1 pay Rs. 269-6-6, or any and what sum for Rajkore's funeral expenses?
2. Did defendant No. 1 pay sums amounting with interest to Rs. 1,054, or any and what sum, in satisfaction of Dhaneshwar's creditors?
3. Was such last payment made at Rajkore's desire? Findings to be sent to this Court within two months of the date of this order.