History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.275

v4.c63.t2.275

¹⁴⁵⁷ Vide *Ramchandra v. Vinayak* L. R. 41 I. A. 290 (= 42 Cal. 384 at pp. 418-421) for the propositions about mutuality, relationship through himself, father or mother and restriction to five degrees. Dr. Sarvadhikari (T. L. L. p. 630ff) is not right in inferring from the nine bandhus expressly mentioned in the verses quoted above that the propositus must be a descendant of a common ancestor who is a member of the following families, viz. (1) claimant's agnate family, (2) claimant's mother's agnate family, (3) claimant's father's mother's agnate family, (4) claimant's mother's mother's agnate family. Following this opinion, it was held in *Lowji v. Mithabai* 2 Bom. L. R. 842 that the great-grandson of a sister is not an heir under Hindu Law. But this decision is against the definition of sapiṇḍa given by the Mit. and is wrong. Vide *Chinna v. Padmanabha* 44 Mad. 121 pp. 128-130 for a reasoned and trenchant criticism of the requirement of mutuality laid down without any discussion or explanation in the case of 6 Cal. 119 and the views of Sarvadhikari. It is to be regretted that owing to the ignorance of Sanskrit on the part of most judges that had to decide cases of Hindu Law, the opinions of individual learned authors like Mayne and Sarvadhikari were followed without personal examination by judges of the authorities on which the opinions of authors were based.