Karamat Husain, J.
1. This was a suit by one daughter against another of a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara. The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that the defendant was in poorer circumstances than the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. That decree was confirmed by the lower appellate Court which found that neither of them had any property of any considerable value of her own, but that the father-in-law of the plaintiff was well to do while that of the defendant was in poorer circumstances. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal and, it is argued on her behalf that the plaintiff and the defendant both come within the category of indigent daughters, and that, therefore, they have equal rights in law. On the authority of Audh Kunwari v. Chandra Dai 2 A. 561 and Danno v. Darbo 4A.243. I am of opinion that the defendant is comparatively poorer than the plaintiff. In these circumstances the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs, which in this Court will include fees on the higher scale.