Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.
1. In this case we are of opinion that the judgment of the District Judge must be affirmed. If we were to accede to the argument urged on behalf of the appellant, the extraordinary result would follow, as has been pointed out by the learned District Judge, that since a sister has precedence over a step-mother, if a step-grandmother had precedence over the sister, she would have precedence over the stepmother, though she herself is more remote. No authority has been cited in support of the argument which has been advanced before us. References have been made only to certain dicta in a judgment of Mr. Justice Ranade in Vithalrao v. Ramrao (1899) 2 Bom. L.R. 139; I.L.R. 24 Bom. 317 in which an entirely different point arose, and it is by no means clear that those dicta would lead to the conclusion that the grandmother who has a special position assigned to her in the Mitakshara includes what is called a step-grandmother. We affirm the order of the lower appellate Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.