History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.40

v4.c63.t1.40

III. 5., Yāj. II. 120, Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 372 v. 14) and Kāt. (855-56). This last rule requires to be explained and illustrated. Yāj. II. 120 concisely states : “ in the case of those who claim through different fathers, the assignment of shares is according to the fathers ”. Kāt. says : “ if an undivided younger brother dies, he ( the elder brother or the other brother ) should make the son of the former a partaker of the ancestral wealth, when he has not obtained from his grandfather livelihood ( i. e. share of heritage ) ; he should obtain from his paternal uncle or the uncle’s son the share which his father would have got (if alive) ; that very share would be the share according to law of all the brothers ( who are the sons of the deceased brother ). Or even a son (of that son of the brother dying ) would obtain that share ; beyond this ( i. e. beyond the grandson of the deceased brother ) there is cessation (of the right to demand a share)”. It was stated that in the ancestral property (*paitāmaha dravya*) sons and grandsons equally have rights by birth, but in the case of the grandsons assignment of shares is made to them through their fathers and not in their separate individual capacity. This may be illustrated by some examples.