JUDGMENT Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, Baldeo Singh, who is the paternal uncle of one Shib Singh, deceased, for possession of the estate left by Shib Singh at his death The defendant is the mother of Shib Singh. In the ordinary course she would be the next heir to the estate of her son, but the plaintiff claims it on the ground that she became unchaste during the life-time of her son. The question to be determined, therefore, is whether a Hindu mother forfeits her right of inheritance by reason of unchastity. The court below has found that the defendant, Musammat Mathura Kunwar, the mother of Shib Singh, had after the death of her husband formed an immoral intimacy with one Pitam and had a child by him. It is urged that under these circumstances she forfeited her right of inheritance The court below has held against the plaintiff and dismissed the claim. In our judgment the question raised is concluded by authority. In the case of Musammat Ganga Jati v. Ghasita (1910) I.L.R., 32 All., 155, which was a case relating to the right of inheritance to stridhan, the learned Acting Chief Justice remarked that "want of chastity in a mother does not deprive her of her right of inheritance." The question before us was fully considered in the case of Dal Singh v. Musammat Dini (1910) I.L.R., 32 All., 155 in that case the authorities of Hindu Law on the subject were considered, and it was held that there was no authority for holding that a Hindu woman who after her husband's death had become unchaste is thereby excluded from inheritance to the estate left by her son. The same view was taken by the Madras High Court in several cases, the last of which is that of Vedammal Vs. Vedanayaga Mudaliar, (1908) ILR (Mad) 100 The decision of the Bombay High Court is also to the same effect. The Calcutta High Court has, no doubt, taken a different view, but its decision is based on grounds which, as pointed out by the Madras High Court, do not apply to a case governed by the Mitakshara. It is admitted that there is no authority in the Mitakshara which, in the case of a mother, requires as a necessary condition of succession that she should be chaste. It is admitted that there is no authority in the Mitakshara which, in the case of a mother, requires as a necessary condition of succession that she should be chaste. Her case is unlike that of a widow succeeding to her husband's property, where it is laid down that unchastity would deprive her of her right of inheritance. The learned vakil for the appellant relied on the word 'patita' to be found in the Mitakshara, chapter II, section X, verse 140, but that word was rendered as 'outcaste' in the case of Dal Singh v. Musammat Dini (1910) I.L.R., 32 All., 155, and its effect was considered by the learned Judges who decided that case. We are not prepared to dissent from the view taken by them, and in the face of the long course of decisions on the point we should not be justified in departing from the rule laid down in these decisions. No doubt it is repugnant to Hindu sentiment that an unchaste woman should inherit property. But in the absence of clear authority in the texts of Hindu law precluding an unchaste mother from succeeding to her souls property, and having regard to the decided cases on the point, we are unable to hold that the decision of the court below is erroneous. 2. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.