History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.413

v4.c63.t2.413

¹⁵⁴⁵ For the territory in which the V. Mayūkha is supreme, vide *Lallubhai v. Mankuvarbai* 2 Bom. 388 (F.B.) at p 418, *Jankibai v. Sundra* 14 Bom. 612 at pp. 623-24; *Vyas Chimanlal v. Vyas Ramchandra* 24 Bom. 367 (F. B.) at p 373. How the Vyavahāramayūkha composed by a Mahārāṣṭra brāhmaṇa whose family had settled at Benares came to be regarded as a work of high authority in Gujarat is explained in *Lallubhai v. Mankuvarbai* 2 Bom. 388 at pp. 418-419 and in *Bhagirthibai v. Kahnujirav* 11 Bom. 285 (F. B.) at pp 294-95. As there is divergence between the views of the Mit and the Mayūkha in the rules of succession, it becomes a matter of great practical importance to settle with precision the exact limits in Northern Konkan up to which the Mayūkha must be regarded as a work of paramount authority. It has been judicially decided that Karanja, an island opposite the Bombay harbour, is governed by the Mayūkha (in *Sakharam v. Sitabai* 3 Bom. 353), that Mahad, the southernmost Taluka of the Kolaba District, is not so governed and that the predominance of the Mayūkha cannot be taken further south than Cheul and Nagothna in the Kolaba District (vide *Narhar v. Bhau* 40 Bom. 621). Similarly difficult questions arise whether Kathiawar which is quite contiguous to Gujarat and some territory bordering on Gujerat towards the north or east is governed by the views of the Mayūkha in preference to those of the Mit. Some parts of Kathiawar which were (and even now are) under the domination of the Gaikwad of Baroda may, on the analogy of the grounds on which the Mayūkha is held to be of paramount authority in Gujarat, be deemed to be governed by the Mayūkha. It appears to me that the tendency of courts should be to restrict the extent of the territory in which the Mayūkha is supreme and to hold that everywhere the Mitākṣarā is supreme, except in those territories where the Mayūkha has been expressly recoginzed as supreme by the feudatory States contiguous to Gujarat or by judicial decisions. The Mit. is the paramount authority in the whole of India except in Bengal; therefore on the analogy of the maxim that a general rule is applicable and is supreme in all cases except where an exception clearly covers the matter (अपवादविषयपरिहारेण उत्सर्गस्य व्यवस्थितिः) districts outside modern Gujarat but bordering on it should not be held to be governed by the Mayūkha.