decide as to whether or not Kasturi would be disinherited or divested of the property even after having acquired an absolute interest under the Hindu Law. This is a moot question and not free from difficulty. We:, will, however, assume for the sake of argument that as wife of Madhua Kasturi might be divested of her interest on her remarriage with Lekhraj. It is plain, however, in this case that the dispute arises over the property of Karna and qua Karna's property, Kasturi claimed inheritance not as a widow of her husband Madhua but as the mother of Karua. The Deputy Director of Cbnsolidation seemed to think that the bar of inheritance would apply to a mother as such as to a widow and on this ground he refused to accept the claim of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the stand taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. We arc, however, unable to agree with the view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which appears to be contrary to the written text of the Hindu Law. Mulla in his 'Hindu Law', 14th Edn, while describing the incidents of a mother regarding inheritance under clause (iii) observed at p. 116 as follows :
