JUDGMENT : Tudball, J. This is a defendant's appeal. The suit was one brought by the plaintiff to recover his share as reversioner in a certain estate. The estate belonged to one Khamani, who died, leaving a widow Musammat Asharfi. His four reversioners are the plaintiff and defendants 2, 3 and 4. The parties are Taga Brahmans of the Bisa ciass. Taga Brahmans are divided into two classes, Bisa and Dasa. For all practical purposes, they are two separate and distinct castes. They neither eat, smoke, or drink with each other, nor can they intermarry. Apparently, if a Bisa Taga is outcasted, he enters the fold of the Dasa Tagas. The courts below have both found that, as a matter of fact among Bisa Tagas, the remarriage of a widow is not allowed and no such marriage is valid according to their caste custom. Therefore, it is clear that section 2 of Act XV of 1856, must apply, according to the ruling of this court, to the case of a Bisa Taga Brahman widow, who remarries. It is an admitted fact that the widow, Musammat Asharfi, has married one of the reversioners, defendant No. 4. As the result of this marriage, both the widow and defendant No. 4 have been outcasted and the plaintiff's case is that he and defendants 2 and 3 are entitled to take the estate in equal shares in view of section 2 of Act XV of 1856. The court of first instance, though it was inclined to hold in favour of the plaintiff, felt that it was bound by the decision in Mula v. Pratab, [1910] 7 A.L.J.R., 417 and dismissed the suit. The court below remitted an issue to the court of first instance for a clear and distinct finding as to whether the remarriage of Musammat Asharfi was valid according to the custom of the caste among Bisa Taga Brahmans. The court of first instance held, and the lower appellate court agreed with it, that such remarriage was invalid and not according to the custom of the caste. The lower appellate court, therefore, on the basis of the finding, held that section 2 of Act XV of 1856 did apply and that the widow had lost her right to retain the estate. It, therefore, gave the plaintiff a decree for one-third of the estate. The lower appellate court, therefore, on the basis of the finding, held that section 2 of Act XV of 1856 did apply and that the widow had lost her right to retain the estate. It, therefore, gave the plaintiff a decree for one-third of the estate. The defendants, Musammat Asharfi and defendant No. 4, have appealed and raised two points. First, that the case is covered by the ruling of this Court mentioned above (Mula v. Pratab); and, secondly, that in any case the plaintiff is only entitled to a one-fourth and not to a one-third share. At first sight, it is very difficult to distinguish the facts of the present case from the facts of the case quoted. But in that case, it will be noticed, there was a finding that though among Bisa Taga Brahmans remarriage of widow is not allowed, still, if a widow does remarry she becomes a Dasa Taga and remarriage is regarded as valid. In the present case, there is a distinct finding of fact that in the caste to which the parties belonged at the time of the remarriage the remarriage in question is invalid according to the custom of that caste. No objection was taken to this finding, and it being a finding of fact, I am bound by it. It is, therefore, clear that section 2 of Act XV of 1856 does apply and under that Act the widow, Musammat Asharfi, loses all her rights to retain her husband's estate. 2. On this point the appeal must fail. But, on the other point, it is clear that the plaintiff being only one of the four reversioners who all stand on an equal footing, is only entitled to one-fourth and not to one-third of the estate. The defendant No. 4, though outcasted, does not, by reason of that outcasting, lose his rights. The appeal is, therefore, allowed to this extent that the plaintiff-respondent will have a decree for a one-fourth share in the estate of Khamani, instead of one-third share which has been decreed to him by the court below. It is to be noted that no decree for mesne profits was granted by the court below. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.