1. The principal question in this appeal is whether the share which a Hindu mother gets on partition among her sons is her stridhan. This point was decided by this Court in Chhidu v. Naubat 24 A. 67, which was followed in Gambhir Singh v. Makaradhuj 4 A.L.J. 673 : A.W.N. (1907) 206. In these cases it was held that the share so acquired by themother is her stridhan and devolves in the same way as any other stridhan. Hon. Pt. Malaviya has drawn, my attention to certain observations contained in the judgment in Phopi Ram v. Rukmin Kuar (1895) A.W. 84 : 19 A. 327 (Note). In view of the later rulings to which I have referred, I feel myself bound to follow them and to hold that the property claimed in this case was the stridhan of the plaintiff's grand-mother and passed upon her death to the defendant, the plaintiff's uncle, in preference to the plaintiff and his brothers.
2. One other contention was raised on behalf of the plaintiff, namely, that the defendant Ganga Ram was bound by an arbitration award made in mutation proceedings. What happened was, that in thamutation case the parties filed a petition, stating that they would be bound by the decision of Piarey Lal, brother of the plaintiff. The Tahsildarj Assistant Collector of the second class, made an Order referring the case to arbitration and an award was made by Piarey Lal. It is this award on which the plaintiff relies. As. the award was not made upon private reference to arbitration and as the Assistant Collector of the second class was not competent to make a reference to arbitration, the reference to arbitration was ultra vires and the award is of no effect. I cannot, therefore, bind the defendant.
3. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs including fees on the higher scale.