in the Courts of the Madras Presidency 27 



property from one who was undoubtedly his heir to a 

 stranger. On appeal the Madras Sadr Court upheld the va- 

 lidity of the will. The Court consisted of a single Judge 

 who was not supposed to possess any exceptional skill in 

 Hindu law. He rested his decision upon a Bengal case, 

 and upon the opinion of the Pandits. The Bengal case 

 could be no authority in Madras, whose law was confessedly 

 different upon the very point in dispute. The Pandits after- 

 wards alleged that they had misunderstood the question 

 which was put to them, and supposed they were asked as to 

 the validity of a gift inter vivos followed by possession, and 

 not as to the effect of a disposition to take effect for the first 

 time after death. The decision was appealed against, and 

 was affirmed by the Privy Council. Their Lordship admit- 

 ted that testamentary instruments were unknown to anci- 

 ent Hindu law, and declined to lay down any broad rule as 

 to the extent to which they might be valid in 'the Presi- 

 dency of Madras. But they gave effect to this particular 

 will ; apparently on the ground that the opinion of the Pan- 

 dits had been in its favour and that two successive Judges, 

 who seemed to have taken a great deal of pains in the 

 case, had confirmed that opinion. 



Oddly enough the matter was not even then at rest. The 

 question came again before the Sadr Court in 1861, when 

 the Judges, with more logic than subordination, decided 

 that the ruling of their own Court in 1851 was as bad as it 

 could be, and that of the Privy Council was no better, and 

 flatly refused to be bound by its authority. Several simi- 

 lar decisions followed, none of which could be made the 

 subject of appeal, and wills appeared again to be in a bad 

 way. But on the 15th August 1862 the Courts were amal- 

 gamated, and another wili-case came before the new High 

 Court. Respect for the Privy Council had now resumed 

 its place as an element of decision. The conflicting judg- 



