JUDGMENT 1. The facts of this case are that Plaintiff Petambari Letani, alias Islam Bibi, sues to establish her title to, and to recover possession of, a 1/3rd share of her father's property. Her right to succeed is denied by her sisters the Defendants on the ground of her having renounced the Hindu religion and become a Mahomedan, and of her having a Hindu husband still living, notwithstanding which fact she has contracted a nikah marriage with a Mahomedan and has had several children by him. The Plaintiff, however, relies on Act XXI of 1850, which provides that "so much of any law or usage as inflicts on any person forfeiture of right or property or may be held in any way to impair or affect any rights of inheritance by reason of his or her renouncing or having been excluded from the communion of any religion or being deprived of caste shall cease to be enforced." Both the lower Courts have allowed the Plaintiff's claim and given her a decree. The Judge of the Court of first instance, it may be noted, is a Hindu gentleman, but he has based his decision on a ruling of the Allahabad High Court, Bhagwant Singh v. Kallu ILR 11 All. 100 (1888). 2. The Defendant No. 1 appeals and on her behalf it has been urged (1) that although, if the Plaintiff had succeeded to her father's property, she could not have been deprived of it, yet, as she is now in the position of an unchaste daughter, and of a daughter who cannot have a Hindu son, who can offer oblation to her father, she cannot now inherit his estate according to Hindu law; and (2) that the Judge is wrong in holding that the issue of her marriage with a Mahomedan are legitimate. 3. With regard to the latter argument, we would say that it is difficult to see how the issue of the Plaintiff's marriage with a Mahomedan can be held to be legitimate. Her Hindu husband is still living. He has abandoned but not divorced her, and, according to Hindu law, there can be no divorce except by custom. No ceremony of divorce of her first husband, even in conformity with the rites of Mahomedan Law, is said to have been performed. Her children are, therefore, illegitimate (see Dhanbibi v. Lalon Bibi I. L. R. 27 Cal. He has abandoned but not divorced her, and, according to Hindu law, there can be no divorce except by custom. No ceremony of divorce of her first husband, even in conformity with the rites of Mahomedan Law, is said to have been performed. Her children are, therefore, illegitimate (see Dhanbibi v. Lalon Bibi I. L. R. 27 Cal. 801 (1900). 4. If this be so, then she is in the position of an unchaste daughter, who cannot inherit according to Hindu law, Ramananda v. Rai Kishori Barmani I. L. R. 22 Cal. 347 (1894). The provisions of Act XXI of 1850 cannot save her right of inheritance, because she has not lost her right by reason of her renouncing or being excluded from the Hindu communion. 5. In this view of the case, it is unnecessary to consider the plea of the Appellant that the Plaintiff cannot have a son, who can offer oblations to his father. 6. The case of Bhagwant Singh v. Kallu I. L. R. 11 All. 100 (1888) would not seem to be any authority in favour of the Plaintiff in this case, because we do not hold that the Plaintiff is disqualified from inheriting by reason of change of religion, but merely because she has put herself in a position in which she cannot, according to Hindu law, inherit a share in her father's property. We, therefore, allow this appeal with costs.