History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.237

v4.c63.t2.237

¹⁴³⁶ किं तु पितुरपि प्रपौत्रपर्यन्ताभावे पितुर्दौहित्रस्याधिकारो बोद्धव्यो धनिदौहित्रस्येव । एवं पितामहप्रपितामहसन्ततेरपि दौहित्रान्तायाः पिण्डप्रत्यासत्तिक्रमेणाधिकारो बोद्धव्यः । दौहित्रोपि ह्यमुत्रैनं सन्तारयति पौत्रवदिति हेतोरविशेषात् । स्वदौहित्रवत्पित्रादिदौहित्रस्यापि तद्भोग्यपिण्डदानेन सन्तारकत्वात् । दायभाग XI. 6. 8-9 pp. 208-209. In *Huri Das v. Rama Churn* 15 Cal. 780 at p. 796 these *placita* were considered and it was held that they are not to be extended to the brother's *(Continued from the last page)* daughter's son and that the latter though a sapiṇḍa of the owner and an heir was not to be preferred to the great-grand son of the paternal grandfather of the propositus. Sarvadhikari (T. L. L. on Inheritance, 2nd ed. of 1922 pp. 701-702) criticizes this decision as wrong, but it does not appear that the Calcutta High Court is prepared to follow him. A similar conflict arises as to several cognate heirs. For example, the son's daughter's son and the son's son's daughter's son offer piṇḍas to the owner himself directly as a maternal ancestor (just as the daughter's son does) and therefore should be placed immediately after the daughter's son as heirs. But the Calcutta High Court would refuse to do so if the reasoning in 15 Cal. 780 be followed. Sarvadhikari (p. 709) however would place them immediately after the daughter's son.