JUDGMENT : Blair, J.:— In this case it is to be regretted that the respondent is not represented in this Court. The appellant was a plaintiff in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The only answer to the claim was that he was out of caste, and therefore such suit could not he decreed. There is a case reported in I.L.R., 8 All, at page 78, Paigi v. Sheo Narain, in which it was held that a plaintiff asking for restitution of conjugal rights and being at the time out of caste, might properly have given to him by the Court a decree for restitution subject to his obtaining re-admission to caste. That rule, however, does not seem to be consistent with an exceedingly careful and elaborate judgment of Mr. Justice MAHMUD with the assent of Mr. Justice STRAIGHT, reported in I.L.R., 13 All., page 126, Binda v. Kannsilia. 2. In that case it was held that to bar a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, the defendant must set up some offence of matrimonial nature, such as would, support a decree for judicial separation. I notice that Mr. Justice STRAIGHT was a party to both cases. I prefer the later ruling in 13 All., and I therefore allow this appeal, allowing the plaintiff a decree for restitution of conjugal rights without appending thereto the condition that he be restored to caste. The appellant will have the costs of this appeal.