JUDGMENT B.K. Mukherjea, J. - This matter is brought before us, under S. 20 read with S. 17, Divorce Act, for confirmation of a decree of nullity of marriage made by the District Judge, 24 Parganas. The parties to the marriage are both Hindus belonging to the Baidya caste and they were married under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, by the Registrar of Marriages for Calcutta on 8th April 1940. About sis months after the marriage the wife presented a petition under S. 18, Divorce Act, for a declaration that the marriage was null and void on the ground that she and the respondent were within prohibited degrees of consanguinity according to the Hindu law by which they are governed. There was no contest on the part of the respondent and the District Judge by his order dated 20th July 1940, declared the marriage to be a nullity. The learned Judge found on evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner that she was the daughter's daughter of the respondent's mother's sister. Thus, the common ancestor of the parties was the maternal grandfather of the respondent and the petitioner was his great-granddaughter. The sole point for our consideration is whether the parties are within prohibited degrees of relationship for purposes of marriage under the Hindu law to which they are subject. 2. According to the rules of Hindu law, a man cannot marry a female descendant within seven degrees from his father or any of his six immediate male ancestors. He is likewise incapable of marrying a damsel who is within five degrees from his maternal grandfather or any of his four paternal ancestors. The prohibition extends to the descendants of pitribandhus ( ) and matribandbus ( ) as well. The bride must not be a descendant within seven degrees of the bridegroom's pitribandhus ( ) or any of the latter's six male ancestors. She must not also be a descendant within five degrees of the bridegroom's matribandhus ( ) or any of the latter's four male ancestors. In the present case, the petitioner is within five degrees from the maternal grandfather of the respondent and consequently the marriage must be held to be invalid unless it comes within any of the exceptions recognised by the Hindu Smriti writers. In the present case, the petitioner is within five degrees from the maternal grandfather of the respondent and consequently the marriage must be held to be invalid unless it comes within any of the exceptions recognised by the Hindu Smriti writers. One such exception is contained in the so-called trigotra rule which sanctions marriage with a girl otherwise prohibited if she is removed from the bridegroom by three gotras. The foundation of this rule is to be found in certain passages of Matsya Puran and Brihat Manu which are referred to by Raghunandan in his Udbahatatwa. The text of Matsya Puran stands as follows: which means that even in the case of nearness of relationship marriage is permissible if the girl is removed by three gotras. Raghunandan explained the term 'nearness' ( ) as referring to the propinquity of relationship arising from the fact that the bride was within seven and five degrees respectively from the father's and the mother's side. The text of Brihat Manu is to the effect that one who is not connected by pinda or water is eligible for marriage and so also is one who is removed by three gotras. The mode of computing the gotras for the purpose of applying the trigotra rule has been thus stated by Raghunandan in his Udbahatatwa (vide Udbahatatwa by Raj Kumar Smriti Vedatirtha p. 41) : 3. This means that in counting the gotras the gotra of the bridegroom should always be excluded, the reason given being, the there is no justification for including the gotra of the bridegroom who is, not reckoned at all in computing the degrees for purposes of marriage either on the father's or the mother's side. The starting point in the computation, would be the gotra of any of the four persons namely, the father, the pitribandhu, the maternal grandfather or the matribandhu through whom the girl is related and within seven or five degrees from whom the girl stands. Raghunandan repels the suggestion made by some writers that these four gotras even are to be excluded for the purposes of ascertaining the three different gotras. This, he says, would militate against the opinion of the most learned professor Sulapani. Raghunandan repels the suggestion made by some writers that these four gotras even are to be excluded for the purposes of ascertaining the three different gotras. This, he says, would militate against the opinion of the most learned professor Sulapani. The position/therefore, is that we have got to take the gotra of the father, the pitribandhu, the maternal grandfather or the matribandhu, as the case may be, to be the first in the order of computation and then if in coming down to the bride we meet with two other and different gotras before that of the bride is reached, the latter will be eligible for marriage on account of her being ( ) or removed by three gotras though she is otherwise within the prohibited degrees. The second gotra must differ from the first and the third from the second, but if the third gotra is the repetition of the first, that would not make any difference according to Sree Krishna Tarkalankar, the well known commentator on Raghunandan though a different opinion is expressed by other writers. Sree Krishna's opinion is expressed in the following passage: (vide Udbahatatwa by Srikrishna Tarkalankar, Edn. 2, p. 172, 1845 Sakabda) which means "Further if the same gotra is repeated twice, then inspite of the sameness of the gotra the interval of three gotras is established." A contrary, opinion is expressed in Udbaha Chandraloka as follows: (when the same gotra falls twice, then, in spite of the fact that it has fallen twice, it must be understood that by reason of the sameness of the gotras the difference of three gotras is not established). We have no hesitation in giving preference to the opinion of Srikrishna Tarkalankar and this is quite in accordance with Hindu custom according to which change of gotra always takes place by reason of the marriage of a daughter who passing into the family of her husband acquires the gotra of the latter. Applying these rules to the case before us the first gotra in the order of computation must be taken to be that of Kali Kumar Das, the maternal grandfather of the bridegroom, whose fourth descendant the petitioner is. The gotra of Kali Kumar was Modgallya. The next gotra is that of Sarala Sundari, the daughter of Kali Kumar, who being born in the Modgallya gotra acquired by marriage the Sattari gotra of her husband. The gotra of Kali Kumar was Modgallya. The next gotra is that of Sarala Sundari, the daughter of Kali Kumar, who being born in the Modgallya gotra acquired by marriage the Sattari gotra of her husband. The third intervening gotra will be that of Chapala, the daughter of Sarala and mother of the petitioner, and as has been said already, that this gotra was Modgallya again would not make any difference. The petitioner, however, as the maiden daughter of Chapala must be deemed to be within and not beyond this third gotra. She is, therefore, not removed by three gotras according to the trigotra rule enunciated above and consequently is not eligible for marriage by the respondent. There is another exception recognised by Hindu Smriti writers, to the ordinary rules of prohibited degrees and under this exception when a fit match is not otherwise favourable the Khatryas in all forms of marriage and the other classes in the Asura or other inferior form of marriage may marry within the prohibited degrees, provided they do not marry within the fifth degree on the father's side and the third degree on the mother : vide Banerji's Marriage and Stridhana, p. 65 (Edn. 4). As has been pointed out by Sir Gurudas Banerji, this exception is based on the authority of Sulapani and has been supported by Paithanasi and Sakatayana, though it has not been accepted by Raghunandan. It was not suggested either before as or in the Court below that the present case comes within this exception and there are no materials before us upon which we could express any opinion regarding it. We need not therefore consider this point at all. The result is that we hold that the present case does not come within the exceptions to the ordinary rules of prohibitive degrees as laid down by the Hindu Smriti writers and consequently the order of nullity of marriage made by the District Judge should be affirmed. R.C. Mitter J. 4. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my learned brother which he has delivered just now. I agree with his conclusion that the marriage is a nullity, as the parties come within the prohibited degrees. But as I was a party to the decision in ('42) 29 Anila Bala Devi Vs. Madhabendu Narain Roy and Another, AIR 1942 Cal 245 . I agree with his conclusion that the marriage is a nullity, as the parties come within the prohibited degrees. But as I was a party to the decision in ('42) 29 Anila Bala Devi Vs. Madhabendu Narain Roy and Another, AIR 1942 Cal 245 . I wish to add few words. In that case Rajendu was connected with Santi Debi through the former's pitripoksha, i.e., through a pitribandhu, namely Raja Mohananda's grandson. In the case before us, the respondent is related to the appellant through the former's matripoksha, i.e., through his maternal grandfather, Kali Kumar Das. Their relationship is indicated by the following genealogical tree. 5. In my judgment for the decision of this case and cases of its kind texts which distribute themselves in three distinct groups and the comments of Raghunandan thereon are material. The first group of texts is noticed by Raghunandan in stanza 2 and the few following stanzas (I am following the numbering as given in Pandit Raj Kumar Vedathirtha's edition). It begins with the texts of Manu and Satatapa. "She who is the mother asapindia and who is also the father's agotra is commendable for marriage by the twice-born." He then examines the meaning of the word sapinda and then quotes a text from the Bishnupuran. Thereafter he quotes the text which literally translated runs as follows : "Seventh from the paternal relations (pitripaksha) and fifth from the maternal relations (matripaksha) a twice-born (dwija) may marry according to law." Commenting on this text Raghunandan takes the word pitripaksha to mean "the father and the pitribandhu as well, and the word matripaksha to mean "the mother and the matribandhu as well." For this computation he gives the eligible bride as are beyond the seventh (saptami) and the fifth (panchami) on the pitripaksha and matripaksha respectively. Thus Raghunandan gives the rule of computation of degrees and names the father and the pitribandhu on the paternal side and the mother and the matribandhu on the maternal side as the starting points for the computation of the seventh (saptami) and the fifth (panchami) up to which ineligibility would extend. He concludes this portion of the commentary by saying: "Here by the word mother the maternal grand-father is indicated." So the starting points become the father, the pitribandhu, the maternal grand-father and the matribandhu. He concludes this portion of the commentary by saying: "Here by the word mother the maternal grand-father is indicated." So the starting points become the father, the pitribandhu, the maternal grand-father and the matribandhu. The two texts of the Matsya Puran and Brihat Manu noticed in the judgment of my learned brother and which furnish the rule conveniently called the trigotra rule are then noticed by Raghunandan. The method of computation of the trigotras, for the trigotra rule, which is an exception to the general rules of prohibition, is dealt with in stanza 17. My learned brother has given the gist of this passage. The relevant passage as translated runs thus : Here in this excepting provision counting of trigotra should be including (adayoiba) the gotras of the father and the pitribandhu who are the starting points in the saptam reckoning and the gotras of the maternal grand-father and the matribandhu who are the starting points in the pancham reckoning; not, however, including the gotra of the bridegroom, as he never figures as a starting point in counting (in the general rule). 6. Here, Raghunandan considers the question as to whether in counting the gotras for the trigotra rule the gotra of the father, pitribandhu, maternal grandfather or matribandhu, as the case may be, is to be reckoned or not. He notices the view that some sages exclude the gotras of the said persons but in this passage he disagrees with those views. To me his reasoning appears to be that as the trigotra rule is an exception to the general rule, namely, that a girl not removed from the pitripaksha by seven degrees or from the matripaksha by five degrees is ineligible, the gotras from the trigotra rule have to be counted from the same starting point from which the degree of remoteness is to be calculated for the purpose of the general rule. Raghunandan broadly gave the rule of computation of trigotra by saying that in the case of relation through pitripaksha, the computation should proceed from and including the gotra of the father and of the pitribandhu, and in case of relationship through matripaksha the computation should proceed from and including the gotra of the maternal grandfather and the matribandhu, Up to this point he did not specify which of the two starting points in each line (pitripaksha and matripaksha) should be the starting point in a particular case. So far as computation of the degree is concerned, it will be immaterial which of the two we take as the starting point, father or pitribandhu in the case of pitripaksha, or maternal grandfather or matribandhu in the case of matripaksha. But this specification would be material in the computation of gotras. Later on, Raghunandan introduces and producers of pitribandhu relationship and producers of matribandhu relationship. It is not necessary in this case to determine the exact signification of this introduction for the purpose of trigotra computation. The method of counting degrees is not fully indicated in this passage, but the starting point is indicated. They are the father, the pitribandhu, maternal grandfather and the matribandhu, as the case may be. As in counting degrees of remoteness for the general rule the bridegroom is not reckoned his gotra is not to be taken into Account, for the trigotra rule. It is therefore necessary to consider how the degree of remoteness indicated in the general rule is calculated. That is indicated in other passages. The rule is that the bridegroom is not to be counted at all. But the counting must proceed from the starting point to the common ancestor of the bridegroom and the bride and then down to the bride when the prohibition to be considered is through the father or the mother, and from the pitri or matribandhu, as the case may be, up to the Bandhu Ghatak relation, e.g., the Bandhu's ancestor and then from that relation down to the bride. To these general rules, one qualification must be made, namely where the relationship is through the mother of the bridegroom, the mother is taken into account by the Mitakshara School, but in the Bengal School she is not reckoned, but the upward counting proceeds from the maternal grandfather. The following illustrations would make the position clear. To these general rules, one qualification must be made, namely where the relationship is through the mother of the bridegroom, the mother is taken into account by the Mitakshara School, but in the Bengal School she is not reckoned, but the upward counting proceeds from the maternal grandfather. The following illustrations would make the position clear. M or m represents males and F females, H, the bridegroom and G the bride 7. In table I, the common ancestor of the bridegroom and the girl is MMM, the boy's great-grandfather. The girl is removed by eight degrees. In table II, the bridegroom and the bride are related through the former's mother and the common ancestor is MMM, the boy's great-great maternal grandfather. According to the Mitakshara School, the girl would be removed six degrees but according to the Dayabhaga she would be removed five degrees only the boy's mother (F) being not counted. As the parties to the appeal which we have before us are governed by the Bengal School Bijon Bala is removed by only four degrees. She is accordingly within the prohibited degrees and the marriage is invalid unless the exception, the trigotra rule, helps Ranjit. The following table illustrates the method of counting of degree of remoteness when the connexion is through a pitribandhu: 8. mB is the father's pitribandhu, being the father's maternal uncle's son. The girl is related through the Bandhu Ghatak relation, that is the Bandhu's ancestor MMM. The girl is thus removed eight degrees and is eligible. From the above illustrations it would appear that in counting of degrees of remoteness there is no difference in the number of degrees whether the counting proceeds from the father or the father's pitribandhu for both of them are on the same level. If the reason of the rule given by Raghunandan for the view that for, the trigotra rule the gotras of the father and pitribandhu are not to be excluded but included be strictly followed I do not see how the observations which we made in ('42) 29 Anila Bala Devi Vs. Madhabendu Narain Roy and Another, AIR 1942 Cal 245 would be affected. Madhabendu Narain Roy and Another, AIR 1942 Cal 245 would be affected. I may, however, state that in view of the illustrations given in stanza 21 to clarify the conclusion to which he comes on considering the third group of texts, that the counting for the trigotra rule should start from the bandhu when the girl is a direct descendant of the bandhu or when the bandhu through him relationship is traced is the father's or the mother's maternal uncle's son, but in all other cases from the bandhus maternal grandfather, some of the expressions used in ('42) 29 Anila Bala Devi Vs. Madhabendu Narain Roy and Another, AIR 1942 Cal 245 may have to be re-examined. The actual decision in that case, can, however, be supported on another ground not noticed there, as it was not urged by the advocates, that Santi Debi would not have been absolutely ineligible for marriage to Rajendu but could have been eligible under the second exception founded on the text of Paithinasi. That was not a case, where a marriage actually solemnised had been challenged but was a case of adoption, the question being whether in any circumstances Santi Debi whose son was adopted could have been married by Rajendu to whom the adoption was made. As in the case before us the gotra has to be counted form Kali Kumar the maternal grandfather and not from Benodini, the mother of Ranjit on the basis of what Raghunandan has said the marriage is invalid. Sen J. 9. I agree.