JUDGMENT Mitra, J. - The decision of the question of Hindu law raised in these appeals depends on the interpretation of Chap. IV, sec. 2, paragraph 16 of the Dayabhaga of Jimutavahana, the paramount authority in the Bengal School. Other authorities may be followed, if there be any ambiguity in Jimutavahana's text. Srikrishna and Raghunandana undoubtedly deserve the greatest respect, but their opinions must yield to the authority of their great master, Jimutavahana, him-self. Chap. IV, sec. 2, paragraph 16 of the Dayabhaga of Jimutavahana is as follows in Colebrooke's translation :-- "As for a passage in Manu, "The wealth of a woman which has been any manner given to her by her father, let the Brahmini damsel take; or let it belong to her offspring," since the text specifies "given by her father," the meaning must be, that property which was given to her by her father, even at any other time besides that of the nuptials, shall belong exclusively to her daughter, etc." The text of Manu referred to in the paragraph is this in original:-- 2. Chap. IX, V 198.--The word "damsel" in the translation by Colebrooke represents the word in the original text. In Jimutavahana's commentary on it in paragraph 16, he also uses the word . In the next sentence in that paragraph he uses the words . In this last sentence, the word is evidently used in contradistinction to the word 3. The question then arises.--In what sense has the word been used by Manu and Jimutavahana. The arguments before me, as well as those before my learned colleagues, Brett and Coxe, JJ., related principally to the meaning of the word and the sense in which it, was used by Jimutavahana. Does it mean an unmarried daughter, or daughters generally? 4. The word primarily means a maiden daughter, a virgin (kumari). That is the interpretation of the word given by the celebrated lexicographers, Amar Singha and Hem Chandra. In the Medini also, the first synonyms of is (maiden daughter). The same meaning is given in the Sabdakalpadruma by Rajah Sir Radha Kanta Deb Bahadur, and all the later lexicographers. Professor H.H. Wilson in his dictionary also gives the same meaning : "A maid, a virgin, a girl of nine or ten years of age." Later writers have occasionally used the word to mean "a woman" from the particular to the general. Professor H.H. Wilson in his dictionary also gives the same meaning : "A maid, a virgin, a girl of nine or ten years of age." Later writers have occasionally used the word to mean "a woman" from the particular to the general. But that is not the meaning of the word as used in the Smritis. To illustrate the primary meaning "virgin" of the word, the learned author of the Sabdakalpadruma has cited a significant passage from the Vanaparba in the Mahabharata showing the root and inflexion of the word and its meaning kumari,- He gives the secondary meaning "woman" following the earlier lexicographers. Sir Greaves Haughton in his dictionary confines the meaning to a "maid, a virgin, a young woman." In fact there can be no doubt as to the meaning of the word as used in earlier Sanskrit literature and law, The genus (woman) for the species (virgin) is of later use. 5. I have not been able to find the word used in its wider sense anywhere in Manu. The word means daughter, married, unmarried or widow. All female children are daughters The word included in its significance, and the lexicographers, I have referred to, are unanimous in this respect. Amar Singha, Hem Chandra as well as the Medini also give the wider meaning of the word kanya, but they do not give the synonym to be duhitri; they give the word woman . When Jimutavahana Uses the words in paragraph 16, he must have used the word in its appropriate sense of daughter and the word as included in the genus The word occurs also in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the same chapter and section. In paragraph 6 the text of Devala is cited. interpreted to mean, as it must, In both the paragraphs, Colebrooke's translation of the words is "unmarried daughter." I am not disposed to come to the conclusion that the same word was used by Manu and Jimutavahana in an unusual sense in Chap. IX, v. 198 and paragraph 16, respectively. Such use would be inconsistent with its use in other parts of their great works. 6. Of the commentators on Manu's text, Kulluka carries the greatest weight. He seems to be of opinion that unmarried daughter first succeeds and on her default, the sons of the deceased. IX, v. 198 and paragraph 16, respectively. Such use would be inconsistent with its use in other parts of their great works. 6. Of the commentators on Manu's text, Kulluka carries the greatest weight. He seems to be of opinion that unmarried daughter first succeeds and on her default, the sons of the deceased. He lays down distinctly that in the presence of both an unmarried daughter and sons, the former should be preferred, and the sons follow the maiden daughter. This seems to be also the opinion of Manu's commentators, Raghavananda, Nandan and Ram Chandra, but Survajna Narayan may appear to be of a different opinion. The latter says i.e., the word kanya is used for daughters generally. But Survajna Narayan's authority has never been recognised in Bengal as superior to Kulluka's and the sentence itself is very vague. 7. The commentators of Dayabhaga, Srinatha, Ram Chandra, Moheswara Achyutauanda, Raghunandana and Srikrishna, interpreted the word in the text as having its ordinary meaning "unmarried daughter." Srikrishna is abundantly clear in his commentary as has been pointed out by Brett and Coxe, JJ. Srikrishna and Raghunandana subsequently laid down in their respective treatises a different rule of succession, as if the word might mean daughters generally. In a conflict of authorities, however, Jimutavahana must be preferred. The later opinions of Srikrishna and Raghunandana which are not based on the text of the Dayabhaga ought not to be followed by the Courts in Bengal, 8. Macnaghten (Principle of Hindu Law, pp. 39 40), Strange (Vol. I, p. 251 and Vol. II, p. 403), Shyma Churn (Vyavastha Darpana, p. 806, 1st Edition; pp. 717-8, 2nd Edition) and Elberling have followed Srikrishna's commentary on the Dayabhaga and not his individual opinion as given in the Dayakrama Sangraha. The order of succession--maiden daughter, son and other daughters--was accepted by all Anglo-Indian text writers until a cloud was thrown in the third edition of Shyama Churn's Vyavastha Darpana published after his death. Sir Gooroo Das Banerjee in his learned work on the Hindu Law of Marriage and Stridhan (p. 401, 2nd Edition) seems to be of opinion that Srikrishna did not follow Jimutavahana as regards succession to pittridatta stridhan. Raghunandan in his Dayatattwa did not also follow the Dayabhaga. 9. Sir Gooroo Das Banerjee in his learned work on the Hindu Law of Marriage and Stridhan (p. 401, 2nd Edition) seems to be of opinion that Srikrishna did not follow Jimutavahana as regards succession to pittridatta stridhan. Raghunandan in his Dayatattwa did not also follow the Dayabhaga. 9. I am of opinion that we should follow the Dayabhaga and not Srikrishna and Raghunandan, when it is evident that the latter have not followed their master in giving preference to daughters generally. I am confirmed in my view by what Rampini and Mookerjee, JJ., have said in Bam Gopal Bhattacharjee v. Narayan Chunder Bandapadhya 10 C.W.N. 510: s.c. ILR 33 Cal 815 (see p. 325) (1905). I agree, therefore, with Brett, J. The result is that the appeals will be decreed with costs in all the Courts.