It could only happen in India - a resurrection. And why not - in a country who's inhabitants beleive in reincarnation. The action takes place near Dhakka, now in Bangladesh, but in India in 1910. Three brothers and their sisters have inherited a large estate. The story concerns the second eldest of the three brothers. He has been married for a couple of years but there are no children. He goes to Darjeeling for a holiday and this is where the trouble starts. He is taken ill; seriously. In spite of having medical attention he dies. His body is carried to the crematorium but, before the cremation can take place there is a severe storm and the funeral party leave the body and flee for shelter. Presently, the squall subsides and the funeral party return to where they left the body. But the body is nowhere to be seen. Some twelve years later a group of wandering sanyasis turn up at the Kumar's former residence in Dhakka. One of the claims to be the missing Kumar. Although he is very much changed from the Kumar that they remember, his local knowledge is indisputable. Some of his close family members, notably his mother, acknowledge him. However, the Kumar's wife has inherited the Kumar's share of the estate and its revenues. The sanyasi now wants his share. The matter was taken to the court in Calcutta. The court considered the circumstances of the Kumar's "death". Evidence was presented that the Kumar passed "blood stools" before he died and that this was a symptom of poisoning by arsenic. The doctors testified that they had administered minute quantities of arsenic as part of the treatment. It is not uncommon that substances used in small quantities can be beneficial for the treatment of certain conditions that would be lethal in larger amounts. No conclusion was reached on whether the Kumar had been poisoned all those years ago - and no autopsy was carried out at the time. The decision of the single judge was that the sanyasi was the Kumar and was entitled to the restoration of his share of the estate. The Kumar's wife, advised by her brother, appealed the decision of the single judge to a full court consisting of three judges. On this occasion the court could not be persuaded and the decision of the single judge at first instance was overturned. However, one of the three judges dissented. The matter now had two judges for the plaintiff and two against. An appeal was lodged with the Privy Council in London. The proceeding were interupted by the Second World War. The Privy Council was loathe to upset the decision of the Full ourt in Calcutta and brought the matter to a conclusion in favour of the Kumar's wife. The author's conclusion was that the sanyasi was most likely a well schooled impostor. He thought that the most likely explanation of the sanyasi's intimate knowledge of the Kumar's family was that he was a distant relative or a person who had been a servant on the estate who had been put forward in an attempt to disinherit the Kumar's wife and her scheming brother.