Viswanatha Sastri, J.
1. The question that arises for decision in this case is whether the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act II of 1929 has any application to succession to the stridhanam property of a Hindu lady or whether the succession is governed by the ordinary rule of Hindu law unaffected by the provisions of Act II of 1929.
2. One Rajammal was the last owner of the property now in dispute. Her husband, Arunachala Asari had a sister and a sister's son from whom the plaintiff has purchased the property. The defendants set up title of the paternal uncle's son of Arunachala Asari as heir to the property of Rgjammal. The question is whether the sister and sister's son of Arunachala Asari could be deemed to be stridhanam heirs of Rajammal in preference to paternal uncle's son of Arunachala. If the ordinary Hindu law of succession were to apply it is clear that Rajammal having died without issue, her husband and his sapindas would be the heirs to her stridhanam property. The question is whether in finding out succession to stridhanam property of Rajammal we have to adopt the original rule of Hindu law regulating succession to stridhanam property and find out the husband's sapindas according to the ordinary rules of Hindu law or whether we have to incorporate the amendment introduced by the Amending Act II of 1929 in the table of inheritance prescribed by Hindu law and ascertain the sapindas of Arunachala on that basis. This question has recently been considered by a Bench of this Court in Mahalakshmamma v. Suryanarayana Sastri : AIR1946Mad294 . Their Lordships held that the amending Act II of 1929 was expressly limited both in its preamble and in Sub-section (2) of Section 1 to succession to the property of a male and it cannot be applied to a case where the question for decision is who are the stridhanam heirs of a Hindu lady. Their Lordships relied upon the opinion of the learned editor of the 10th edition of Mayne's Hindu law and on the decision in Sakuntalabai v. Court of Wards I.L.R. (1942) Nag. 629 and expressed their dissent from the decision of a single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Mt. Charjo v. Dinanath A.I.R. 1937 Lah. 196 and of the Bombay High Court in Shamrao v. Raghunandan I.L.R. (1939) Bom. 228. We respectfully agree with the reasoning of the learned Judges in the decision in Mahalakshmamma v. Suryanarayana Sastri : AIR1946Mad294 which we find has been referred to with approval in a subsequent decision of the Patna High Court in Dulhin Talukraj Kuar v. Babui Bacha Kuar I.L.R. (1947) Pat. 150.
3. The result is that the rule of succession to the stridhanam property laid down in the Mitakshara School of Hindu law has not been in any way altered by the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (II of 1929). This is the only point that has been argued in this Letters Patent Appeal. The matter is covered by the previous decision of this Court and we see no reason for departing from it.
4. In the result the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs.