1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the right of inheritance with respect to certain properties which were the stridhanam properties of Umamba Boi Saheba, a lady who must be taken to have been married in the approved form to Sivaji Maharaja of Tanjore. On her death the properties were inherited by her surviving co-widow, Jeejamba Boi Saheba. The appellants, on the death of Jeejamba Boi Saheba, claim to be entitled to this property by virtue of their relationship as sister and sister's son of Umamba Boi Saheba. The learned Subordinate Judge has found on the basis of the law laid down in the Mayukha that Jeejamba Boi Saheba formed a fresh stock of descent and therefore, the appellants (plaintiffs in the suit) had no case. The family of the Maharajah of Tanjore migrated from Poona and the Subordinate Judge has found that they are governed by Maharastra Law. But it is not necessary for the decision of this appeal to consider that question inasmuch as it is conceded that Maharajah Sivaji left a daughter's son's son. It is contended however that the husband's daughter's son's son is not entitled to succeed to a woman's stridhanam property as a sapinda of the husband. The word 'sapinda,' as used in plaeitum 11 of Chapter II of the Mitakshara, means, ac-cording to the contention of the appellant's learned Pleader, only gotraja sapindas, that is, sapindas belonging to the family of the propositus's husband. But it is well established that the word 'sapinda' is used in that plaeitum in the generic sense of relations allied to the propositus by affinity of blood. This is clearly laid down in Marya Pillai v. Sivabagyathachi 12 Ind. Cas. 128 , a case which has been followed in Kanakammal v. Ananthamathi Ammal 25 Ind. Cas. 901 , and also in Kamala v. Bhagirathi 16 Ind. Cas. 939 . It is there laid down: 'The meaning of the above text is plain. It means that the stridhanam property of a woman married according to an orthodox form who has left no issue will devolve on her husband and on failure of the husband, the property will go to his sapindas in the order laid down in the Mitakshara with reference to succession to the property of a male. That is to say, we have to ascertain the persons who would succeed to the property as the nearest sapinda of the husband if the property belonged to him.' This is absolutely clear, and we are bound by the decision which has been followed in other decisions of this Court. This view of the law is also generally supported by a ruling of the Privy Council, in Ramchandra Mart and Waikar v. Vinayak Venkatesh Kothikar 25 Ind. Cas. 290 . On this ground alone the appeal must be dismissed. We do not, therefore, think it necessary to consider whether, at the time when the petition was made for amendment of the plaint, the Pleader for the plaintiff had made an admission which would be binding on the plaintiffs.
2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.