JUDGMENT :- The 3 plaintiffs who are divorced daughters of Kamini Devi Brahmani have come to this Court on the revision side from the decree dated 16-4-52 passed by the District Judge in appeal reversing that of the Munsiff dated 2-11-51 in his courts title suit No.395 of 1950. The decree in appeal resulted in the dismissal of the suit. 2. The only point worth considering and argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the plaintiffs who are divorced daughters of Kamini Devi Brahmani are entitled as of right to live in the house of their maternal uncles where their mother was living after her divorce. It is proved and not disputed that the house in question is not of Kamini Devi Brahmani the mother but belongs to her brothers (maternal uncles of the plaintiffs) where she (the mother) began to reside after her divorce. It is argued that according to custom a daughter after her divorce has a right to return to her Mapam (parental house) and live there for her life-time during the divorced period. This proposition is not denied by the learned counsel for the respondent who contends that Mapam only means fathers house and not mothers house. It is difficult in the present case to decide this point in the absence of any issue and evidence. In the present case this question does not arise as the house in dispute never belonged to their mother. It is the property of her brothers. I agree with the learned District Judge in his finding that the plaintiffs cannot claim residence as of right in the Inkhol belonging to their maternal unclear and that the life interest of their divorced mother to reside in her paternal house cannot be extended to her divorced daughters in their turn. This revision petition is, therefore, rejected. Under the circumstances of this case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Revision rejected.