JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. In view of the authorities in this Court this appeal must be allowed. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to the property of one Ramji deceased, as his heir. She is a granddaughter of Ramji, being his daughter's daughter. The defendant-appellant, Jagannath, is the son of a maternal uncle of Ramji. The parties are governed by the law of the Mitaksliava. The Court of first instance held that Jagannath had a preferential claim to the property, but on appeal this decision was reversed, the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court holding that a daughter's daughter is entitled to inherit in preference to a maternal uncle's son. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bansidhar v. Ganesh, [1900] I.L.R., 22 All., 338.. The only question in this appeal is which of the decisions of the Courts below is correct. 2. In the case of Koomud Chunder Roy v. Seeta Kanth Roy, [1863] W.R., Sp. No., F.B., 75., it was held by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court that according to the Mitakshara law a grand-daughter does not inherit. The claimant in that case was a grand-daughter claiming her grand-father's estate. In the course of its judgment the Court held that as the female claimant was “governed by the rules of the Mitakshara law, the claimant, who is the granddaughter of Issur Chunder Roy, cannot inherit any share of the estate, and she is, as ruled by the Principal Sadr Amin, entitled to maintenance and to nothing further “. 3. In the case of Gauri Sahai v. Rukko, [1880] I.L.R., 3 All, 45. a Bench of this Court consisting of PEARSON and OLDFIELD, JJ., held that according to the Mitakshara law none but females expressly named among the heirs can inherit. This decision was approved of by a Full Bench of the Court in the case of Jagat Narain v. Sheo Das, [1883] I.L.R., 5 All, 311.. In that case it was held that the sister of a deceased Hindu not being expressly named was not entitled to succeed to an estate. The Full Bench treated the point raised as settled law and as having been correctly determined in Gauri Sahai v. Rukko 4. In the case, however, of Bansi Dhar v. Ganeshi, [1800] I.L.R., 22 All., 338. The Full Bench treated the point raised as settled law and as having been correctly determined in Gauri Sahai v. Rukko 4. In the case, however, of Bansi Dhar v. Ganeshi, [1800] I.L.R., 22 All., 338. a Bench of this Court held that in the absence of preferential male heirs a daughter's daughter is heir to her maternal grand-father. In that case it does not appear that the earlier decisions to which we have referred were brought to the notice of the Court. In fact it was admitted by the learned Vakil for the appellant that the plaintiffs, who were daughter's daughters, were heirs to their maternal grandfather in the absence of preferential male heirs. It is possible that the rulings which were cited in that case were rulings of the Madras High Court supporting the view that a son's daughter and a daughter's daughter do succeed as bandhus. These are the cases of Nallanna v. Ponnal, [1890] I.L.R., 14 Mad., 149 and Ramappa Udayan v. Arumugath Udayan, [1893] I.L.R., 17 Mad, 182.. These rulings are inconsistent with the current of authority in these provinces and cannot be here regarded as authoritative. 5. In the case of Nanhi v. Gauri Shanker, which is reported in the Allahabad Law Journal, Volume II, p. 654,, [1905] 2 A.L.J.R., 654. our brothers BANERJI and RICHARDS upheld the authority of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Jagat Narain v. Sheo Das and questioned the propriety of the decision in Bansi Dhar v. Ganeshi. We are bound by the decision of the Full Bench, and therefore must hold that the plaintiff-respondent, Musammat Champa, not being expressely named as an heir, was not entitled to maintain the suit. 6. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore the decree of the Court of first instance, dismissing the plaintiff's claim with costs in all Courts, including fees in this Court on the higher scale.