History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.1225

v4.c63.1225

¹¹⁵⁰ Vide *Vithal v Prahlad* 39 Bom. 373 (partition among grandsons), *Kanhaiya Lal v. Gaura* 47 All. 127 (partition between grandsons), *Babuna v. Jagat Narain* 50 All. 532 (partition between one son and his predeceased brother's son), in all of which the grandmother was held entitled to a share. See *Sheonarain v Janki Prasad* 34 All. 505 (F. B ), *Jamnabai v. Vasudev* 54 Bom. 417 for the proposition that in a suit for partition between father and his son only the paternal grandmother is not entitled to a share; but vide *Badri Roy v. Bhagvat* 8 Cal. 649, *Krishnalal v. Nandeshwar* 4 Pat. L. J. 39, 42–44 (for the opposite proposition that the grandmother would be entitled to a share in a partition between her only son and the latter's son). In view of the fact that Vyāsa declares the grandmother to be equal to the mother it appears that all grand-mothers, whether sonless or not, should secure a share.