JUDGMENT 1. The question involved In this appeal is one of succession to a woman's stridhan, the competition being between her stepsisters son, and her deceased husband's elder bother. The Dayabhaga, in Chap. IV, sec. 3, after enumerating certain heirs to the woman's stridhan, down to the husband in verse 31 says us follows:-- On failure of heirs down to the husband, this rule again is provided, which Vrihaspati thus delivers, the mother's sister, the maternal uncle, the father's sister, the mother-in-law, and the wife of an elder brother, are pronounced similar to mothers. If they leave no issue of their bodies, nor son (of a rival wife), nor daughter's son, nor son of those persons, the sister's son and the rest shall take their property. 2. That is to say, that such persons to whom the deceased stood in a position similar to a mother--such as sister's son, husband's sister's son, etc., etc., succeed to her stridhan. 3. This verse, we may here mention, does not lay down the order of succession but only a description of the heirs. (See verses 35, 36 and 38). 4. The order of succession is given in verse 37, in which the author of the Dayabhaga, after referring to the succession of the husband's younger brother, and the son of her husband's brother says as follows :-- 5. On failure of such, the sister's son though he be not a kinsman (sapinda), inherits the separate property left by his mother's sister, because he presents oblations to her, and to three persons, (her father and the rest) to whom oblations would have been offered by her son. In default of him (insert the rest of the verse) 6. The author then says in verse 39 :-- Again, on failure of these six, it must be understood, that the succession devolves on the father-in-law, the husband's eldest brother and the rest, according to their nearness of kin [the nearest sapinda hoing the heir]. 7. It will thus be seen that the husband's elder brother comes in after the sister's son. And the only question that we have to determine is whether "sister's son " includes step-sister's Ron. 8. On examination of the various portions of Chap. IV, sec. 7. It will thus be seen that the husband's elder brother comes in after the sister's son. And the only question that we have to determine is whether "sister's son " includes step-sister's Ron. 8. On examination of the various portions of Chap. IV, sec. III, it will be found that though spiritual benefit to the deceased is indicated as the principle of succession, the relative degrees of such benefit is not necessarily the rule which determines the question of the order of succession. 9. But however that may be, so far as the immediate question we have to determine in this case is concerned, it will be observed that the mother's step sister stands to one in a position similar to mother, almost precisely in the same way as his mother's uterine sister does. And he also confers upon the deceased and to three persons, her father, etc., spiritual benefit by the offering of oblations. Thus taking the principles underlying the succession of a sister's son, there is no just reason to exclude the step-sister's son from category of heirs. 10. Reference has been made to verse 29, which referring apparently to the succession to a woman's sulka, speaks of the "whole brother." This rather supports the contention of the Plaintiff than that It is very difficult to exclude the stepsister's son. 11. The Sub-Judge has referred, in his judgment, to the translation as given by Babu Shama Charan Sarkar of the words " sister's son," as occurring in the table of succession in his book " Vavasta Durpan." Those words have been translated as (own sister's son). The words in the original text simply mean " sister's son," " her sister's son;" and it would seem that in the table of succession the next in order being the husband's sister's son, the author probably used the words as cantra-distinguished from her husband's sister's son. 12. The Sub-Judge we observe is not prepared to hold that the step-sister's son is no heir at all, for he says " They may however come to succeed after the list given is exhausted," meaning the list given by Shama Charan Sarkar. 12. The Sub-Judge we observe is not prepared to hold that the step-sister's son is no heir at all, for he says " They may however come to succeed after the list given is exhausted," meaning the list given by Shama Charan Sarkar. But it seems to us that if he is an heir he is entitled to succeed in preference to husband's elder brother--he being, so far as the question befere us is concerned,-- practically in the position of the "sister's son" of the deceased woman, as mentioned in the verses to which we have referred. Upon all these grounds, we set aside the judgp--' " the lower Courts (sic) (sic) (sic) (sic) the step-sister's (sic) (sic) (sic)