JUDGMENT Mitra, J. - The argument before me has turned on a question of Hindu law not touched by the text-writers or commentators of the Bengal School of law or any decision In British India. Such a case was not In the contemplation of the ancient Hindu lawyers. Kasinath died leaving four sons, Brojo Mohan, Krishna Mohan, Peary Mohan and Lal Mohan. But Brojo Mohan had been excluded from Inheritance by his father. He did not Inherit any share of Kashi Nath's property. His property was inherited by his three other sons, Krishna Mohan, Peary Mohan and Lal Mohan. If Brojo Mohan had got a share of his father's property either by partition during his life-time or by inheritance after his death, there would have been no difficulty in the case. The case of partition during the life time of the father or after the father's death is contemplated by Hindu lawyers and rules of inheritance are laid down for oases of continued separation or of reunion. Exclusion for causes not expressly mentioned in the text-books was not contemplated. 2. Brojo Mohan died, it is said, 40 or 50 years ago. He was never in possession of any portion of the estate left by Kasinath, neither had his son Hari Nath from whom the Defendants claim by transfer ever possession. The exclusion, therefore, was complete, and If the law of limitation could be set up, the bar would be fully effective. Both the father and son were entirely separate from the rest of the family and had never at any time any thing to do with the family property. Re-union, as understood in Hindu law, could not take place between them and the rest of the family, because there never was a union followed by separation, see Balabux v. Rukhma Bai 7 C.W.N. 642: s.c. ILR 30 Cal. 725; L.R. 30 I.A. 130 (1903). 3. Krishna Mohan died leaving him surviving Kumud Kamini his daughter. Peary Mohan had a son Nanda Gopal. Nanda Gopal Inherited his father's one-third share of Kasinath's property, and when he died sonless, Achala his widow and on her death, Giribala his mother, the widow of Peary Mohan, Inherited his share. Lai Mohan died leaving Nanda Gopal and Hari Nath his nephews, surviving him. He had no son or widow and it is alleged that his share passed to his brother's son Nanda Gopal alone. 4. Lai Mohan died leaving Nanda Gopal and Hari Nath his nephews, surviving him. He had no son or widow and it is alleged that his share passed to his brother's son Nanda Gopal alone. 4. Lal Mohan, It appears, died within 12 years of the Institution of the present suit. There is no express finding one way or other in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, and I must assume for the purpose of the appeal, that there is no bar of limitation to the claim of the Plaintiffs or acquisition of title by adverse possession by any party. 5. Of the two nephews of Lal Mohan, Hari and Nanda Gopal, Hari was like his father separate and not joint with Lal Mohan but Nanda Gopal was a member of a joint family with Lal Mohan. Did Nanda Gopal inherit Lal Mohan's share excluding Hari ? This is the only question in the case. 6. The texts of Jimutavahana and his followers, the authorities of the Dayabhaga School of law, are clear on one point. Chap. XT, sec. 5, para. 39 of the Dayabhaga as well as sec. 6, speak of Inheritance by brothers' sons. If Brojo Mohan or his son Hari had been joint or re-united with Lal Mohan, the texts would make Nanda Gopal and Hari coheirs. If, on the other hand, Brojo Mohan and Hari had been separated coparceners without a subsequent re-union, the succession would, undoubtedly, devolve on Nanda Gopal to the exclusion of Hari. Be-union is a technical expression and has been defined by the text-writers. The Dayabhaga as well as the Dayakrama Sangraha define it and the definition is based on the texts of the sages. Re-union, the Sanskrit word being sansristha, implies a state of union or jointness, a partition and a subsequent state of jointness amongst co-parceners by mutual consent and through affection. Hari could not, therefore, be a re-united co-parcener nor was he a separate kinsman after partition, though he was, in fact, separate without a division. Re-union, the Sanskrit word being sansristha, implies a state of union or jointness, a partition and a subsequent state of jointness amongst co-parceners by mutual consent and through affection. Hari could not, therefore, be a re-united co-parcener nor was he a separate kinsman after partition, though he was, in fact, separate without a division. The contention before me--a contention which, it appears, was faintly pressed in the lower Court--is that the sages and the text-writers not having dealt with a case like the present one, the theory of spiritual benefit should be applied in the Dayabhaga school for determining heirship; that is to say, inasmuch as Hari and Nanda could offer the same number of oblation-cakes to Lal Mohan and his paternal ancestors, and so far as spiritual benefit was concerned, Hari and Nanda Gopal stood on the same level, they should divide the inheritance. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned vakil for the Respondent that the Sanskrit word sansristha does not only include the state of re-union but also jointness, and therefore, Nanda Gopal having been joint with Lal Mohan would alone obtain the inheritance, excluding Hari who was separate. 7. I cannot accept either of these grounds of contention. I cannot give a meaning to the word sansristha which has not been given to it by the authorities and call a coparcener sansristha when he was always joint and there never was a partition. He was joint but not re-united. Neither am I prepared to hold that the ancient sages and commentators intended that mere spiritual efficacy would control succession in such a case. If I were to hold that both the cousins would inherit the share of Lal Mohan, I would, in my opinion, go against the spirit of the texts of the sages and commentators. 8. Notwithstanding the predominance given to the theory of spiritual benefit by the writers on the Bengal school of law, they have not adhered to it in the case of re-united co-parceners; they have excluded separated co-parceners and given preference to re-united co-parceners instead of applying the theory of spiritual benefit. It is clear they have ignored the theory of spiritual benefit whenever there is a contest between separated and re-united co-parceners, in the same way as they have ignored it in several other cases. It is clear they have ignored the theory of spiritual benefit whenever there is a contest between separated and re-united co-parceners, in the same way as they have ignored it in several other cases. Principles other than spiritual benefit have often been applied, as will be apparent from even a cursory reading of the great work of Jimutavahana. I am quite sure that if they could contemplate a case like the present, they would have laid down that preference should be given to the joint as against the separate kinsman. 9. In Chap. IV, sec. 2, Jimutavahan gives here and there his reason for succession to be spiritual efficacy, but the wife or the daughter or the mother cannot confer spiritual benefit and in cases of stridhana a maiden daughter supersedes sons and in succession to father's property, she supersedes her married sisters. Propinquity has been accepted in the Bengal school as a principle for succession, Toolsee Das Seal v. Lukhimony 4 C.W.N. 743 (1900), though spiritual benefit is also taken into consideration. In the case of succession to the property of a man who dies leaving both a joint nephew and a nephew who or whose father was never joint, other principles and not spiritual efficacy should be, in my opinion, taken into consideration as Jimutvahana has done so in similar and numerous other cases. In cases not contemplated by him or his followers In the Bengal school of law, the law should be developed on rational lines consistently with the principles followed In similar cases and the decisions of our Courts should not be based on a blind adherence to a principle which would lead us to the violation of other recognised principles consistent with natural justice. 10. Spiritual benefit, notwithstanding some authorities to the contrary, is not always the guiding principle of inheritance under the Bengal school of law. The theory of spiritual benefit cannot apply to a good many cases of inheritance under the Dayabhaga school of law. Spiritual efficacy as a principle guiding rules of succession must fail in the cases of all female relations. The widow, the daughter, the mother, the paternal grandmother are said to inherit under express texts. The theory of spiritual benefit cannot apply to a good many cases of inheritance under the Dayabhaga school of law. Spiritual efficacy as a principle guiding rules of succession must fail in the cases of all female relations. The widow, the daughter, the mother, the paternal grandmother are said to inherit under express texts. It was necessary in their cases to have recourse to a different principle, and that principle must have been affinity and affection which had led the more ancient sages to say that they come in the line of heirs. Yajnavalkya's text as well as the texts of many other sages could not be either avoided or reconciled with the theory of spiritual efficacy in all cases. In most cases, propinquity, spiritual efficacy and natural love and affection run in the same lines and no difficulty arises, but whenever they run in different lines, Jimutvahana was compelled to ignore spiritual efficacy and had recourse to other principles or express texts. 11. The reason for Inheritance by a reunited co-parcener is not spiritual benefit but a quasi contractual relation and affection for each other. Spiritual benefit has no place, Affection is an important