History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.276

v4.c63.t2.276

¹⁴⁵⁸ *Vide Brij Mohan v. Kishun Lal* (1938) A. L. J. 670 where the Allahabad High Court held that, even when the claimant traced sapiṇḍa relationship through his father, heritable bandhu relation ceases after the fifth degree. But in *Kesar Singh v. Secretary of State for India* 49 Mad. 652 at p. 690 it is said that, though in the P. C. decision there are some observations which at first sight imply that sapiṇḍa relationship of bandhus for inheritance ceases with the 5th degree in all cases, there is nothing to suggest that the Privy Council intended to do away with the wellknown distinction between bhinnagotra sapiṇḍas that claim relationship through their father and those that trace it through their mother. There is great diversity of view yet about what the P. C. meant in 41 I. A. 290. In *Seelam Nagamma v. Reddam* I. L. R. (1943) Mad. 759 (F. B.) it was held that Dr. Sarvadhikari is wrong in his restrictions of heritable bandhus to the lines he propounds, that 54 All. 698 is wrongly decided and that 49 Mad. 652 lays down the correct law. On the other hand, in *Hanmant v. Vasudev* I. L. R. (1943) Bom. 465 it has been held that the P. C. means that heritable bandhus whether claiming through the father or the mother must be within five degrees from the common ancestor. *Vide Debi Das v. Mukat Behari* I. L. R. (1943) All. p 131 which lays down several rules deducible from an examination of numerous cases. As an illustration of how the law of the succession of bandhus is in a bewildering state, the following two cases may be read. In *Sakharam v. Balkrishna* 49 Bom. 739 (F. B.) it was held that a father's sister's son is to be preferred under the V. Mayūkha to the maternal uncle, but the P. C. decided in *Balsubramanya v. Subbayya* L. R. 65 I. A. 93 that the maternal uncle is entitled to preference over the father's sister's son.