1. The plaintiff in this case is the illegitimate son of a Sonar father and Mallahin woman. He claims restitution of conjugal rights with a woman who is now admitted to be the legitimate daughter of Kasarwani Baniya parents. The only question which we have to decide is whether such a marriage can under Hindu Law, be considered legal. We have been shown several authorities in support of the view that marriage between different sub-castes of Sudras have been held to be legal, but we have seen no case in which it has been held that a legal marriage can be contracted between a Sudra and a Vaish. In this case the girl is undoubtedly a Vaish and the plaintiff is a Sudra. The authority which we follow is that of this High Court in the case of Padam Kumari v. Suraj Kumari (1906) 28 All 458 in which it was held that a Brahmin could not legally marry a Chhattri, and again in Sespuri v. Dwarka Prasad (1912) 10 ALJ 181 where it was held that a fortiori a Thakur man could not legally marry a Brahmin woman. In our opinion this question has already been settled by authority and the view taken by the lower appellate Court is correct. We dismiss this appeal with costs.