JUDGMENT Fletcher, J. - This is an argument on caveat. Two cave's have been filed, one by a widow of a predeceased son of the deceased and the other by the deceased's sole widow. As regards the caveat filed by the deceased's sole widow opposing the probate, no doubt she has sufficient interest to file a caveat, and be heard in opposition to the grant of the probate. As regards the caveat filed by the widow of the predeceased son, the matter stands on a different footing. The way that learned Counsel wishes to show that the widow of the predeceased son has sufficient interest to oppose the probate is as follows:-He says first of all that the deceased was under a moral obligation to maintain the widow of his predeceased son and that that moral obligation upon his death ripened into a legal obligation and would be binding on the heir. Learned Counsel has referred to the case of Bai Patvati v. Tarwadi Dolatram I. L. R. 25 Bom. 263 (1900). That is the decision of Mr. Justice Fulton and Mr. Justice Batty: and no doubt the decision did decide that the widow of a predeceased unseparated son has no right to maintenance from a person to whom her father-in-law has bequeathed the whole of his self-acquired property. The learned Judges in the course of their decision distinguished the decision of Mr. Justice Ranade in the case of Yamunbai v Manubai I. L. R. 23 Bom. 608 (1899). I am not satisfied that the grounds upon which the learned Judges attempted to distinguish the case are correct. Mr. Justice Subramanya Ayyar and Mr. Justice Moore in the case of Ragammal v. Echammal I. L. R. 22 Mad. 305 (1898). gave a decision opposed to that of Bai Parvati v. Tarwadi Dolatram I. L. R. 25 Bom. 263 (1900).. In the course of his judgment Subramanya Ayyar, J., made the following remarks :- The better conclusion is, perhaps, that the party whose moral claim becomes a legal right would not be affected by testamentary dispositions in favour of volunteers made by the persons morally bound to provide the maintenance. 263 (1900).. In the course of his judgment Subramanya Ayyar, J., made the following remarks :- The better conclusion is, perhaps, that the party whose moral claim becomes a legal right would not be affected by testamentary dispositions in favour of volunteers made by the persons morally bound to provide the maintenance. No doubt, if the title of the female claiming the maintenance were dependent on the volition of such a testator, he could, by his Will, have directed that she should get no maintenance out of his estate." On principle I think that the decision of Mr. Justice Subramanya Ayyar and Mr. Justice Moore is correct, and the decision of Mr. Justice Fulton and Mr. Justice Batty is one that I ought not to follow. Moreover, my attention has been called to a case in this Court, Seddeshuty Dassi v. Janardan Sarkar I. L R. 29 Cal. 557 : S. C. 6 C. W. N. 630 (902) which was an appeal from the Original Side. That case was a decision by Sir Francis Maclean, C. J., Mr. Justice Prises and Mr. Justice Hill. Mr. Justice Prinsep in the course of his judgment expressed his approval of Mr. Justice Ranade's decision in the case of Yamunbai v. Manubai (I. l. R. 23 Bom. 608 (1899) and of the decision of Mr. Justice Subramanya Ayyar and Mr. Justice Moore in Rangammal v. Echammal I. L. R 22 Mad 305 (1893). Under these circumstances I think the widow of the predeceased son of the deceased has in fact no interest sufficient to enable her to appear on the proceedings. In my opinion the rights and the interest of the widow of the predeceased son will not be affected by anything that may take place on the hearing of the application for probate. Her caveat must therefore be discharge. Costs to be costs in the cause.