THE SHUDRAS : THE DEGRADATION OF THE SHUDRAS 163
The validity of this judgement was not accepted by the Allahabad High Court. In I.L.R.12 All. 328, [1] Justice Mahamood at page 334 observed as follows :
“I entertain considerable doubts as to the soundness of the view which seems to have been adopted by both the Courts below, that the literary caste of Kayasthas in this part of the country, to which the parties belong, falls under the category of Shudras, as understood in the division of mankind in the Institute of Manu or elsewhere in authoritative texts of the Hindu Law. The question is one of considerable difficulty not only ethnologically, but also from a legal point of view, so far as the administration of the Hindu Law to this important section of the population is concerned. I do not take the question to be settled by any adjudication of the Lords of the Privy Council either in Sri Narayan Miner vs. Sree Mutty Kishen Soondoory Dassee, [2] or in Mahashova Shosinath Ghose vs. Srimati Krishna Soondari Dasi [3] in both of which the cases referred to adoption by Kayasthas of Lower Bengal, who may be distinguishable from the twelve castes of Kayasthas in Upper India, such as the North-western Provinces and Oudh. Nor do I think that the unreported decision of the learned Chief Justice and my brother Tyrell in Chaudhari Hazari Lai versus Bishnu Dial (First Appeal No. 113 of 1886, decided on the 15th June 1887), which was also an adoption case, settles the question. But I need not pursue the subject any further....”
The third case is reported in (1916) 20 Cal. W.N.901 [4] . Here the question raised was whether Kayasthas of Bengal were Kshatriyas or Shudras. The High Court of Calcutta held that they were Shudras. The case was taken to the Privy Council by way of appeal against the decision of the Calcutta High Court. The decision of the Privy Council is reported in (1926) 47 I.A. 140. The question whether the Bengali Kayasthas are Shudras or Kshatriyas was not decided upon by the Privy Council but was left open. In between 1916 and 1926 the Calcutta High Court gave two decisions which held that intermarriages between Kayasthas of Bengal and Tantis [5] and Domes [6] two of the low castes, were legal on the ground that both of them were sub-castes of Shudras.
These decisions which caused further deterioration in the position of the Kayasthas were followed by another which is reported in I.L.R. 6 Patna 506. [7] In a most elaborate judgement extending over
47 pages Mr. Justice Jwala Prasad went into every Purana and every
Tulsi Ram versus Behari Lai.
L. R. I. A. Sup., Vol. 149.
L. R. 7,1.A., 250.
Asita Mohan Ghosh versus Nirod Mohan Ghosh Maulik.
(1921) 48 Cal. 626. Bishwanath Ghosh versus Srimati Balai Desai.
(1924) 51 Cal. 788. Bholanalh Mitter versus King Emperor.
(1926) Ishwari Prasad versus Rai Hari Prasad Lai.