1. The only question for decision in this case is whether a Hindu widow on re-marriage forfeits the life-interest which she holds as the mother of a deceased son who survived her husband. The point seems to us to be conclusively determined in the affirmative by the decision in Matungini Gupta v. Ram Rutton Roy 19 C. 289 : 9 Ind. Dec. 638 (F.B.) and we are especially pressed by the argument of Banerji, J., in that case. The principle is further established in another case in the Calcutta High Court, Rasul Jehan Begum v. Ram Surun Singh 22 C. 589 : 11 Ind. Deo. 392, in which judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice Ghose, and in the Full Bench case of the Bombay High Court in Vithu v. Govinda 22 B. 321 : 11 Ind Dec.796, in which the judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice Ranade. The same view was taken in Nitya Madhav Das v. Srinath Chandra Chuckerbutty 8 C.L.J. 542 and Gouri Churn Patni v. Sita Patni 5 Ind. Cas. 710 [LQ/CalHC/1909/435] : 14 C.W.N. 346. The Madras Court has taken a similar view, but we are not concerned with the conflicting line of decisions of Madras and Bombay as opposed to Allahabad. We have only to say that for the last twenty years there has been a constant cursus in one direction in the Calcutta High Court and we are bound(sic) that. We would also add that we entirely agree with the principles of Hi(sic) Law upon which these decisions have been based. The decree made by the learned Subordinate Judge must be set aside and the decree of the learned Munsif restored. The respondents will pay the costs of this litigation throughout.