History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.252.3

v4.c63.t2.252.3

The first three of these were before this Act not at all recognized as heirs in the whole of India except in Bombay (where the sister was recognised as a gotraja sapiṇḍa and the first two as bandhus) and except in Madras (where the first three were recognized only as bandhus). The sister's son was given a very high place as a sapiṇḍa under the Dāyabhāga and was treated as a bandhu elsewhere in India. This enactment does not affect the Dāyabhāga scheme and so the three females mentioned in the Act are not heirs even now under the Dāyabhāga. The sister's place as settled by Bombay decisions is after the paternal grandmother and before the paternal grandfather, while the above Act places her after the paternal grandfather. In *Bai Mahalaxmi v. The Deputy Nazir* 45 Bom. L. R. 434 it has for this reason been held that the Act does not apply to the Bombay Province. If it be held that the Act does apply to Bombay (except as to the sister), then the same Act will have to be deemed to be laying down two different orders of succession as to the same four heirs in different provinces, which, to say the least, is not a reasonable or desirable way of interpreting statutes (just as in the case of texts).