History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.271.1

v4.c63.t2.271.1

The first question is whether the enumeration of *bandhus* in the verses quoted is exhaustive or only illustrative. The V. P. expressly¹⁴⁵⁴ states that if the enumeration be held to be exhaustive absurd results would follow. For example, a maternal uncle's son is expressly named as an *ātmabandhu* in the verses quoted above, but his father (the maternal uncle), being not mentioned, would on that hypothesis be excluded. Therefore it was held by the Privy Council in a very early case¹⁴⁵⁵ that the enumeration of bandhus is only illustrative, that the maternal uncle though not mentioned is a nearer bandhu and would succeed in preference to his own son who is expressly mentioned. In *Balasubrahmanya v. Subbayya* 65 I. A. 93 it was held that under the Mitākṣarā the principle of proximity of blood relationship applies to the succession of bandhus, that in determining which of two ātmabandhus is entitled to succeed nearness of degree and not religious efficacy is the proper test to apply, that when the ātmabandhus are equal in degree the test of religious efficacy may be applied to determine preference and that the maternal uncle of the deceased is entitled to preference over the deceased's father's half sister's son. This was followed in *Virangauda v. Yellappa* I. L. R. (1943) Bom. 259 (F. B.) where the mother's brother of the deceased was preferred to the father's sister's son. So also the mother's father would be a bandhu.